Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 27

< July 26	July 28 >

July 27

Indianapolis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indianapolis, Indiana to Category:Indianapolis

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary dab per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States. The following are affected:

In all cases, I propose removing ", Indiana." For Category:Healthcare in Indianapolis, Indiana, I propose renaming to Category:Health care in Indianapolis per the main article of health care. For Category:People from Indianapolis, Indiana, I propose renaming to Category:Persons from Indianapolis, as this is the proper plural. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have moved all articles with ", Indiana" and I have proposed the main article for a move as well. By the time you read this, Indianapolis, Indiana may redirect to Indianapolis; presently, the opposite is the case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all – per nearly everything in Category:State capitals in the United States and per numerous recent cfds going in the opposite direction (eg this one on 22 March 08, and this one on 29 May 08 which moved 'History of Indianapolis' to 'History of Indianapolis, Indiana' in a unanimous cfd). And changing people to persons in 1 'people' category out of a trillion is just ludicrous, as is changing just one of Category:Healthcare by city of the United States. Occuli (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This nomination goes against the consensus in just about every related nomination. And the consensus in these decisions is rather strong. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments above. The categories for U.S. cities seem to be evolving in the opposite direction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Indianapolis, Indiana stubs probably should be removed if there is support for the rename since this also falls under the stub sorting project. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Justin, you know all the nominations have been going the other direction, so I'm not sure why you're testing that with Indianapolis.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - per the article, per the other 99.9% of other city articles/categories related to US cities that aren't named Chicago or New York, per the canonical form quoted in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States and per the fact that removing the state does not improve the encyclopedia; it just makes it more American-centric. The naming convention says we don't have to use , Indiana; but, it is definitely not encouraging the removal, nor is it the best practice if we want to maintain a consistency for all United States cities throughout the whole encyclopedia to someone who may not be up to speed on the latest AP style manual. Neier (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to have one city different than the rest of the entire encyclopedia.Bruce Garrison 08:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films about scene performers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Films about scene performers to Category:Films about entertainers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm not seeing the useful distinction in separating out films about "scene performers" from films about "actors," "actresses," or "entertainers." Merge to the parent for possible redistribution to the various other subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Does "scene performers" have a common meaning? If so. it's unknown to me. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grupo Inditex

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grupo Inditex to Category:Inditex

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article. I would be open to other options since it appears that the main article should also be renamed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Inditex seems to be a 'manufactured' name such as (perhaps) Goretex, or Amstrad so it doesn't translate. Occuli (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grupo Ferrovial

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ferrovial Group. Kbdank71 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Another 2 article category where the main company article handles the navigation without the need for the category. If kept, rename to Category:Ferrovial to match the lead article or even better rename to Category:Ferrovial Group and the article to Ferrovial Group which the article lists as the English name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename everything to Ferrovial Group (see eg Ferrovial website). There seems to be plenty that could be added, and it seems to be expanding rapidly. (I've added Category:BAA Limited.) Occuli (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Acciona

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only 3 entries including the holding company. Company article provides ample navigation to the other articles included in the category as well as for the subsidiaries without articles. . Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Abertis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category only has two entries and navigation is better handled by the article which shows that there only only 2 subsidiaries with their own articles. Unlikely to be needed for navigation anytime soon even if any more articles get created. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Indianapolis, Indiana

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename as suggested, per consensus and Wikipedia style guidelines. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Various Indianapolis categories to Category:Various "Indianapolis, Indiana" categories

Nominator's rationale: Per main category and article, both at "Indianapolis, Indiana." Personally, I think it's nonsense to have "Indianapolis" redirect to "Indianapolis, Indiana," but as long as it does, there should be consistency in naming all such articles and categories "Indianapolis, Indiana." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full list:

Withdrawn per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#United_States. I will re-list all the ", Indiana" categories at my earliest convenience. Please close this nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that does not apply to category names. I suggest that you leave this open. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per well-argued nom and per recent precedents. Occuli (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The discussion was not closed before there was a support vote, so it can not be withdrawn. While many of you might expect me to have opposed this, I don't have the time to research and see if my normal reasons are valid here. Also the latter opposite direction request really begs for a clear consensus here to avoid additional confusion. I will also add that the reason for the requested withdrawal does not apply to categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, do not withdraw. These are already tagged, and consensus will likely be in favor of them being renamed, so I say rename them all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Racecar drivers killed at Indianapolis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Racecar drivers killed at Indianapolis to Category:Racecar drivers killed at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway

Nominator's rationale: This is the location where they were killed and "at Indianapolis" is ungrammatical. At the very least, change it to "X in Indianapolis." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing - this is an unnecessary triple intersection (occupation + death + location) and there are no other such categories in Category:Deaths in sport. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing - per Bencherlite, and add as necessary to List of Indianapolis 500 fatal accidents. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Types of scientist by nationality

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming to Category:Scientists by occupation (and by nationality)

Nominators' rationale: This category was previously discussed, twice, without reaching a conclusion. To summarize the previous conversation:

The original name is slightly off the mark -- it doesn't properly specify what the category is actually used for. It is not about the various types of scientists, but rather a directory of the scientists themselves.
There are many categories like this one, that are multiple navigation categories -- a way to navigate through categories first looking at one subclassification (in this case the specific occupation of the scientists) and then by another subclassification (in this case nationality).
The normal custom when creating categories that just contain subcategories is to use "X by Y", where all the subcategories are "X" and they are organized listed in order of "Y".
These multiple navigation categories are ambiguously named. There is confusion because the names can be parsed more than one way. For instance, the current name can be thought of as "Types of (scientists by nationality)" or "(Types of scientists) by nationality"
If the name of these multiple navigation category is in the form "X by Y and Z", it is not clear whether all the subcategories should contain "(X by Y) organized by Z" or "(X by Z) organized by Y". If you think of the "Y and Z" being sequential, you'll expect the latter. If you follow the "by Y" convention of other similar categories you'll expect the former.
If we rename all of these categories to "X by Y (and by Z)" we can keep the convention that all of the subcategories will be listed "by Y", and the parenthesis will help make it clear that the next choice will be "by Z". This follows the convention and also works sequentially.

So I'm proposing that this category can be renamed using this new convention, and if there is consensus, we'll can consider renaming the other categories that are similar. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - Very nicely laid out, Sam. This is exactly what we (you & I) finally agreed on after a number of false starts. The only thing to add is that a fairly clear concensus had emerged with regard to using the formulation "Scientists by occupation" in preference to other options that were considered. Cgingold (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - I think this is OK and will get used to it. It would be helpful also to look at the companion Category:Scientists by nationality (and by occupation) for reassurance that one has got one's head round this. Occuli (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting suggestion, but that particular category isn't really needed, since that function is basically fulfilled by Category:Scientists by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the present Category:Scientists by nationality different from Category:Scientists by nationality (and by occupation)? Occuli (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't discern any real difference except for the inclusion of some individual scientists directly in the main nationality categories, which by definition would not be permitted in the hypothetical Category:Scientists by nationality (and by occupation). Cgingold (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. "Scientists by occupation" seems slightly redundant to me. Shouldn't it be something like "Scientists by specialty" or "Scientists by field of study"? (I know those aren't quite right either, though; perhaps this is part of the problem: figuring out exactly what to use.) Where can I find the discussion referred to where "occupation" was settled on? I won't formally oppose this proposal since I don't want to block something when it sounds like it has been discussed and agreed to elsewhere. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Modern pederasty

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category groups together various modern topics under the name of "Modern pederasty", giving WP:UNDUE weight to the view of topics such as NAMBLA and Mark Foley scandal being examples of "pederasty". (the former example which includes pedophilia as well as ephebephilia in its scope, and the latter which is a political scandal that involves ephebephilia definitely but pederasty?? (Pederasty involves courtship, and consent of both parties doesn't it? I'm not sure the Mark Foley scandal falls in that scope) Those are just 2 examples of the problems that can come from this category's usage. Feel free to explore other articles included in this cat. User529 (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC) User529 (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. User529 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —User529 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator is giving undue weight to one or two entries among many. I could not care less whether NAMBLA stays or goes, that is a decision to be made on its merits not an excuse to delete a whole category. As for Foley, I would really like to see you draw a distinction between ephebephilia and pederasty. Better yet, please find one out there and bring it in as evidence. The man courted teenage boys. Did you not just say that pederasty involves courtship? As for "consent", if you are trying to wedge the door open to shove in sexual consummation as a precondition for pederasty, it is not going to work. The academic definitions (as opposed to vernacular use) and the literature will automatically refute that. Haiduc (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (1) Ephebophilia and pederasty are 2 distinctly different concepts, as someone as familiar with the topic as you would know already. Ephebephilia refers to attraction whereas pederasty is a a form of relationship. (2) Foley obviously was "courting" the pages and former pages if you want to call it that, though I'm not sure I'd call it a 2-way courtship. These 2 articles just show the kind of abuse that this category can cause. Any editor could shove any sex scandal or age-difference relationship in this category to try to give it an air of authority and credibility. NAMBLA as a modern pederasty association? give me a break. Ephebephilia does not always = pederasty, and pedophilia definitely does not = pederasty. User529 (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty, while it can certainly be a form of relationship, is also one of the three main branches of homosexuality. As such it is something other than a relationship, since I am sure you will not claim that homosexuality is a relationship.

As for courtship being one way or two way or X-way, that is not germane to the discussion. Look at Greek pederasty - it encompassed all kinds of courtship. Haiduc (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "Pederasty, ... is also one of the three main branches of homosexuality." FALSE. Pederasty is a type of age-structured relationships, which is one of the three main anthropological types of homosexuality. Age-structured is not the same as pederasty. In some indigenous cultures (though less-so today) there is the institution of adolescents having sexual relationships with younger pre-adolescents. This would be age-structured but not pederasty. I am not trying to give some value judgement as to whether pederasty is wrong or right, but let's not exaggerate its scope to give WP:UNDUE credibility and perceived historical legitimacy to non-pederastic topics. Age-structured relationships definitely have a prominent place in same-sex sexuality through history, but pederasty is just one of those types of relationships. User529 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are grasping at straws. Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, to pick one among many, refers to the Melanesian practice as pederastic.

Several examples of institutionalized pederasty, especially from the area of Papua-New Guinea and Melanesia are described. These practices, with a clear societal function, are part of a distinct outlook on life and only superficially resemble the man-boy relationships we can observe today. In other parts of the world, pederastic practices were forms of prostitution.

What we see here is a pragmatic use of the word, as opposed to the reductionist approach that some here would try to impose. It seems to be indicative of a strategic shift on the part of the opposition. It used to be, years ago, when I first started documenting pederastic homosexuality here, that the general cry was "Pederasty, we want none of it!" That of course did not work very well. Now the new tactic is "Pederasty? We do not know what it is and it is very hard to define, so out with it!" We shall see how well that will succeed. Haiduc (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haiduc. Disagreement about a few entries is not a reason to delete the category. In this case, there wasn't even an attempt made to discuss these disagreements before nominating the category for deletion. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The disagreement is not about just a few entries but an inherent problem that is the result of having such a category named as this. Pederasty is a specific type of relationship. Note that Justin Berry is also listed in this category. The Berry case definitely includes ephebophilia among his customers and suitors, but "pederastic"? that is debatable. As to disagreements not being discussed before nomination, please see Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association#Inclusion_into_category_Modern_pederasty.3F_-_request_for_comments where I raised that article's inclusion in this category up for discussion. The community decision at the time was to get Haiduc's opinion, and after he had given his blessing I deferred to his judement (a decision I have since realized as premature, since while Haiduc may be knowledgable in the topic of pederasty from a academic perspective, his fervor for this issue has been questioned by some (see relvent other discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia and on Wikipedia Review (note: I am not a member of or involved in WR, but have found it can be informative at times) as that of a POV warrior spreading the gospel of pederasty. I have no problem with pederasty or with ephebophilia, but they are not the same. User529 (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is not as clear as all that which one of us two is the warrior, and which one the scholar, I think you would be best advised to drop this tactic and address the issues, not the gossip. Haiduc (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four years, 1 month, and 9 days. Yeah, you're not a warrior. heh. --User529 (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment, inadvertently, says a great deal more about you than it does about me. Haiduc (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent, no. Indifferent, yes. You are wikipedia's problem, not mine. spend another 4 years building sand castles on Jimmy's beach. i'm out of here. User529 (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand how WP:UNDUE applies to this category. It would be appropriate to put an article in this category if the article discusses pederasty in the modern era. That could be because a person or organization is associated with the subject either pro or con. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I have been arguing in many places that the definition of "pederasty" is too inconsistent, subjective, and ideologically charged for it to be applicable as a neutral label by Wikipedia editors. The special definition used on Wikipedia is of a sexual or non-sexual relationship between an adult and an "adolescent." That is problematic enough, since the application of the label "adolescent" has, is some of these articles, been quite wildly subjective and inclusive to the point of meaninglessness.

But it is not even the primary definition in common usage, which typically views the word as a synonym for male pedophilia. This is not, as Haiduc presents it, a contrast between a colloquial definition and an academic definition. I have just turned up the Complete Dictionary of Sexology edited by prominent writer Robert T. Francoeur. In it, pederasty is defined as male pedophilia.

The definition we are using is that of a small group of writers within academia, one with its own very specific point of view. I think that makes our independent application of the label here on Wikipedia very, very problematic.

Dybryd (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty obviously exists, and has done so for a very long time. The fact that different observers have varied in their descriptions and definitions simply obliges us to use an inclusive approach to the topic, rather than running away from it altogether. I am sure that we can make room for the Francoeur definition as well, if only to flag it as outside of the mainstream of scholarship. Would you mind quoting his definiton in toto, together with his definition of pedophilia? Haiduc (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more obvious to me that pederasty "exists" than it is obvious to me that sodomy "exists". The meaning of these words lies solely in the (various) POV judgments of the people using them. They are value judgments without factual content.

Dybryd (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really is an extensively studied field, even if the definitions have changed over time, as have many scientific opinions. Sodomy too has been studied, and the fact that its meaning has varied does not put it off limits for us here. It simply leads us to carry on separate discussions about the various phenomena that have been covered by the term, such as religious crimes, anal sex, bestiality, etc., as well as sodomy itself. We have done the same with pederasty, which has been used for everything from pedophilia to androphilia. It just so happens that there is an essential kernel to pederasty that remains even when you remove topics best covered under other headings. The proof of that is the persistence of the term in academia, and not just in one discipline but in many. I am still curious to see Francoeur's definitions. Haiduc (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many topics that are extensively written about remain POV in their terminology. Neuroticism has been extensively written about. That is not a good justification for a Category:Neurotic people.

Meanwhile, the idea of this "essential kernel" is about as subjective and OR as can be. Dybryd (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me, I am simply relating the fact that it is a topic of academic study. Haiduc (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you -- or any contributing Wikipedia editor -- whether to assign a given person to the Category:Pederasty. That is not a statement of fact, it is the exercise of interpretive judgment. Dybryd (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So none of the people on that list were pederasts? Or some were and some were not? Why is it any more pov to call someone a pederast that to call someone gay or straight? And where is Francoeur? Haiduc (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay" is a modern social label. Wikipedia applies it only with a sourced self-identification. It is culturally defined, and it would be very strange to apply it to anyone of another time.

If you were as strict with your application of the label "pederast" as Wikipedia normally is with the label "gay" I should be delighted.

Francoeur is at the library.

Dybryd (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. So Oscar Wilde and Andre Gide were not homosexual? I am off to the library, I have a lot of stuff to look up now. Haiduc (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that "homosexual" is a synonym of "gay"?

Do you really?

Dybryd (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that the French term "pédé" is used as a synonym for "gay"? Now where could "pédé" come from....? Fulcher (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you know what, you're right in a way -- Wikipedia uses that vague "LGBT" acronym for almost everything throughout time, and it is a bit sloppy.

Dybryd (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting hairs will just paralyze all the gender studies discussions. Human behavior is not mechanical engineering. Haiduc (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't seen an convincing argument for the deletion of this article. Fulcher (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ... not an article? Dybryd (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err... sorry, category of course. Fulcher (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator states that this category is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the view of topics such as NAMBLA and Mark Foley scandal being examples of "pederasty." The argument, in essence, is that the nominator feels that these two examples do not belong to this category of articles; From there, the nominator argues that the category itself should be deleted. This argument from a specific case to a general principle is a logical fallacy. Therefore, I find no rationale for deletion has been asserted, so the category should be kept. Additionally, of the subsequent argument back and forth, I find Haiduc to have made some good points, as well. --SSBohio 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a post from a little while ago, Dybryd asserted that "I have just turned up the Complete Dictionary of Sexology edited by prominent writer Robert T. Francoeur. In it, pederasty is defined as male pedophilia." I found that surprising enough to warrant a trip to the library. Francoeur's text does not say that. I quote it in full here:
"Sexual relations between a man and a boy. Common but incorrect usage of the term includes the limitation of anal intercourse (qv) performed by an older male on a prepubertal (qv) or early pubertal (qv) boy. The term is also incorrectly used to refer simply to anal intercourse without regard to the ages of the participant males. The term is not applicable to sexual relations (qv) between an older woman and a boy. See also pedophilia.
It is my impression that you read it hastily, and did not notice that Francoeur refutes the restriction of the term to a pedophilic and penetrative sense. My reading of the text is that while Francoeur does not exclude that sense, he indicates that pederasty encompasses other manifestations as well. Haiduc (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact read to me over the phone by a librarian who, in repeating phrases, apparently got them out of order! Dybryd (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. I am actually grateful to you for making me get off my ass to do the research, because Francoeur says something very important here: he says that it is a mistake to restrict the term to what many people have been claiming is the "dictionary definition." While at the library I did not waste my time but scoured through a number of dictionaries, and while I did find a lot of definitions of the "anal sex with boys" type, I also found some others, which shows that even among dictionaries there is no consensus that all we are talking about is penetrating little boys.

For example, "Homosexual relations, especially between a male adult and a boy or young man" comes from the Harper Collins English Dictionary, Desktop edition, 2004; "Homosexual relations between men and boys" comes from another dictionary, and I'll be damned but the picture I took of the page left out the name of it, but I'll get it the next time around. So all in all not a wasted trip. Haiduc (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nom has apparently retired so likely will not be responding to comments. Banjeboi 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Haiduc. Banjeboi 23:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ComfortDelGro Corporation Companies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ComfortDelGro Corporation Companies to Category:ComfortDelGro companies

Nominator's rationale: Naming conventions for categories; see the categories for First Group companies as an example. The capital C is not necessary. AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korea-related Wikipedia tools

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Korea-related Wikipedia tools to Category:Korea templates

Nominator's rationale: Not sure why we have two categories. Both are subcategories of each other, and the "tools" are in fact just templates. PC78 (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums produced by Haluk Kurosman

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is way too fine-grained. Nobody knows this person from a hole in the ground. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:HOLE applies to articles, not categories; the article looks OK; the albums look OK; Category:Albums by producer is established and he is listed as sole producer of at least 3 albums. I have not myself heard of any of these but Google turns up plenty. Occuli (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that you don't know this person doesn't mean he is not an established name in his own country. See Haluk Kurosman article. The albums he produced lead music charts in Turkey and sold over the average + were awarded plenty of awards. The world does not evolve around the English speaking countries. If he is not English he is not notable? Nonsense.

Besides, HOLE is not an official guideline in Wikipedia, just an essay. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 12:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid cat. --Soman (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.