- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, defer for Gender, Race, Sexuality, take your pick -- Kbdank71 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic and mostly gossip.
- Delete - POV, non-encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:19, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
- In this category, Foucault or Butler indeed write about sexuality, so OK, there's a connection. But of, e.g., Wittgenstein, it's pointless trivia. It's much like a hypothetical Category:Philosophers with facial moles because, y'know, some had them and some didn't Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:21, 2005 August 30 (UTC) ...apparently there is a meta-discussion on similar needless categories. So I change my vote to: Delete and salt the earth where the category once grew, so that nothing can ever sprout up again.
- Delete. A somewhat stronger case can be made for keeping this cat, compared with the "secular jewish philosopher" one. However, I vote to delete because I don't think there's value in having this cat. I would support a cat on "Philosophers concerned with Sexuality," or some such, but not this, which seems to place persons' personal sexual preferences (which are by no means always static, or even verifiable per WP:V) above their value as philosophers.— Encephalon | ζ 05:13:37, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 05:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, do not categorize by sexuality. R adiant _>|< 09:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Promotion of a point of view. CalJW 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Jeez people, how many times are the same categories gonna come up on CfD? - Seth Mahoney 01:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and suspend discussion until resolved at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Seth is right. This is getting tiresome. Can we try to reach an agreed consensus about this and not just repeat ourselfs at CfD? Radiant! started the page to try and hash this out. -- Samuel Wantman 04:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Samuel and Seth, thank you for your comments. I hope you will consider being less rude, however. The above meta-discussion
page was only created at 07:45:18 on Sept 1. All the votes here before yours were placed before that. I agree it would be nice for those who are interested to go over and join that discussion, but it was a tad impossible for the editors above to do so: the page didn't exist when they voted (or when the nominator put the category up for deletion).—
Encephalon |
ζ 05:46:36, 2005-09-02 (UTC) Incidentally, might I add the existence of that page does not nullify the opinions expressed here.—
Encephalon |
ζ
- Quite sorry if the comments seemed rude. Of course the page was just created, but there have been LGBT categories nominated for deletion over and over. Perhaps our frustration is showing. Of course everyone's opinion counts. I'm just suggesting that rather than have this repeated discussion, we try to work something out that we can all live with. -- Samuel Wantman 10:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and it is very annoying to constantly have to vote on CfD because somebody put up yet another LGBT* cat for deletion. -- AlexR 10:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I happened across the fact that this CfD was linked to from
Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. My impression, with all due respect to the voters, is that the "keep" votes that came along were via that link, and that they were rather knee-jerk "keep anything that says LGBT in it." Obviously, editors can vote whatever they like; but I'd really urge a more nuanced position than I see in evidence. I'm all in favor of LGBT categories that really pertain to why the thing in question in encyclopedic, I think they're dreadful for things that amount to gossip (which is most people categories). For example, LGBT books, films, organizations, laws, etc. are (or would be) great categories. Even people who are involved in gay rights or the like. But not where notability is unrelated to sexuality.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
- With all respect, you're likely wrong about our motivations. Our votes may be knee-jerk, but its not a "keep anything that has LGBT in it" (most of us voted against keeping Category:LGBT ancient Greeks, for example). Its just frustration not only because every LGBT-related category appears on CfD at some point, but most seem to reappear every other week. We're all a little sick of putting work into something that just gets deleted because someone can't stand to see anything that references anything other than vanilla heterosexuality (I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but it has definitely happened elsewhere). So, you'll have to forgive the knee-jerk response, but hopefully it at least makes some sense now. And my vote is still keep. - Seth Mahoney 01:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Before we end up in a shouting match, let's talk about this category. There are four people in this category. Two of them, I don't know about and didn't find out much by reading their articles, the other two
Judith Butler and
Michel Foucault are most certainly philosophers who's work significantly deals with LGBT philosophy. If people want to argue for renaming this category, or limiting its members to a standard more strict than "They are LGBT and they are philosophers, they belong here", I'm willing to listen and discuss it. But I see very little of that among those calling for the deletion of this category. When being LGBT becomes as irrelevant as having a facial mole in this world, I too will call for the deletion of this category. Until that day, my vote stands. Keep. --
Samuel Wantman
05:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am indeed all in favor of having a category like
Category:Philosophers who write about sexuality to include thinkers like Foucault and Butler (and a bunch more not listed). That would actually speak to the reason-for-notability of philosophers with articles. Of course, those included may or may not themselves be LGBT (and likewise if it were "philosophers who write about homosexuality" of something). This kind of good category is both verifiable and encyclopedic. And it ain't the category at issue here.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 September 3 (UTC)... in fact,
being bold, I went ahead and created the actual useful category, and added a bunch of likely names to it; help add more relevant articles.
- It isn't useful to make this category inclusive of all philosophers who write about sexuality. You would be including all forms of sexuality, not just LGBT. For now, at Wikipedia, the term is LGBT. There has been much discussion about what the best name is, and no better solution has yet found a consensus. Also, what is so terrible about including philosophers who happen to be LGBT, but don't write much about sexuality? If the problem is that their sexuality may be the result of "gossip", can't that be addressed without the necessity of deleting the category? A philosopher's sexuality might be trivial to you, but who is to say that it won't be important to someone else?--
Samuel Wantman
06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, that is precisely what is useful. It speaks to the actual professional noteriety of the philosophers, and is verifiable from their works themselves. It's not just a "feel good" cheat about "those famous people are queer too, so I can feel better about myself" (which, unfortunately, seems to be the real sentiment in favor of the unencyclopedic categories). Feeling good about yourself is good, but WP ain't a therapy group. 70.109.229.212 19:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't useful to make this category inclusive of all philosophers who write about sexuality. You would be including all forms of sexuality, not just LGBT. For now, at Wikipedia, the term is LGBT. There has been much discussion about what the best name is, and no better solution has yet found a consensus. Also, what is so terrible about including philosophers who happen to be LGBT, but don't write much about sexuality? If the problem is that their sexuality may be the result of "gossip", can't that be addressed without the necessity of deleting the category? A philosopher's sexuality might be trivial to you, but who is to say that it won't be important to someone else?--
Samuel Wantman
06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am indeed all in favor of having a category like
Category:Philosophers who write about sexuality to include thinkers like Foucault and Butler (and a bunch more not listed). That would actually speak to the reason-for-notability of philosophers with articles. Of course, those included may or may not themselves be LGBT (and likewise if it were "philosophers who write about homosexuality" of something). This kind of good category is both verifiable and encyclopedic. And it ain't the category at issue here.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 September 3 (UTC)... in fact,
being bold, I went ahead and created the actual useful category, and added a bunch of likely names to it; help add more relevant articles.
- Keep, no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:35, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
- Keep per Seth.
Jobe
6
04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC) - Keep this and any other similar categories that show up here. Guan aco 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Earlier discussion had proposed a uniform renaming of all subcats of Category:Films by director to the format Films directed by Firstname Lastname. Broader rename got lost in the shuffle and so I'll reanimate. - The Tom 21:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Yea I left it listed in unresolved discussions but guess it was removed later, figured it would get nominated soon enough. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all. - Sean Curtin 01:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. - Splash 01:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. - choster 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Good catch. Nandesuka 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Who is going to tag the subcats? --
Kbdank71
14:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Is there a bot that can assist with all the recatting? - choster 05:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus, defer for Gender, Race, Sexuality, take your pick -- Kbdank71 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic and mostly gossip.
- Delete - POV, non-encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:19, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
- In this category, Foucault or Butler indeed write about sexuality, so OK, there's a connection. But of, e.g., Wittgenstein, it's pointless trivia. It's much like a hypothetical Category:Philosophers with facial moles because, y'know, some had them and some didn't Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:21, 2005 August 30 (UTC) ...apparently there is a meta-discussion on similar needless categories. So I change my vote to: Delete and salt the earth where the category once grew, so that nothing can ever sprout up again.
- Delete. A somewhat stronger case can be made for keeping this cat, compared with the "secular jewish philosopher" one. However, I vote to delete because I don't think there's value in having this cat. I would support a cat on "Philosophers concerned with Sexuality," or some such, but not this, which seems to place persons' personal sexual preferences (which are by no means always static, or even verifiable per WP:V) above their value as philosophers.— Encephalon | ζ 05:13:37, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
- Delete. No argument. siafu 05:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, do not categorize by sexuality. R adiant _>|< 09:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Promotion of a point of view. CalJW 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Jeez people, how many times are the same categories gonna come up on CfD? - Seth Mahoney 01:16, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and suspend discussion until resolved at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Seth is right. This is getting tiresome. Can we try to reach an agreed consensus about this and not just repeat ourselfs at CfD? Radiant! started the page to try and hash this out. -- Samuel Wantman 04:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Samuel and Seth, thank you for your comments. I hope you will consider being less rude, however. The above meta-discussion
page was only created at 07:45:18 on Sept 1. All the votes here before yours were placed before that. I agree it would be nice for those who are interested to go over and join that discussion, but it was a tad impossible for the editors above to do so: the page didn't exist when they voted (or when the nominator put the category up for deletion).—
Encephalon |
ζ 05:46:36, 2005-09-02 (UTC) Incidentally, might I add the existence of that page does not nullify the opinions expressed here.—
Encephalon |
ζ
- Quite sorry if the comments seemed rude. Of course the page was just created, but there have been LGBT categories nominated for deletion over and over. Perhaps our frustration is showing. Of course everyone's opinion counts. I'm just suggesting that rather than have this repeated discussion, we try to work something out that we can all live with. -- Samuel Wantman 10:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and it is very annoying to constantly have to vote on CfD because somebody put up yet another LGBT* cat for deletion. -- AlexR 10:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I happened across the fact that this CfD was linked to from
Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. My impression, with all due respect to the voters, is that the "keep" votes that came along were via that link, and that they were rather knee-jerk "keep anything that says LGBT in it." Obviously, editors can vote whatever they like; but I'd really urge a more nuanced position than I see in evidence. I'm all in favor of LGBT categories that really pertain to why the thing in question in encyclopedic, I think they're dreadful for things that amount to gossip (which is most people categories). For example, LGBT books, films, organizations, laws, etc. are (or would be) great categories. Even people who are involved in gay rights or the like. But not where notability is unrelated to sexuality.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:02, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
- With all respect, you're likely wrong about our motivations. Our votes may be knee-jerk, but its not a "keep anything that has LGBT in it" (most of us voted against keeping Category:LGBT ancient Greeks, for example). Its just frustration not only because every LGBT-related category appears on CfD at some point, but most seem to reappear every other week. We're all a little sick of putting work into something that just gets deleted because someone can't stand to see anything that references anything other than vanilla heterosexuality (I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but it has definitely happened elsewhere). So, you'll have to forgive the knee-jerk response, but hopefully it at least makes some sense now. And my vote is still keep. - Seth Mahoney 01:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Before we end up in a shouting match, let's talk about this category. There are four people in this category. Two of them, I don't know about and didn't find out much by reading their articles, the other two
Judith Butler and
Michel Foucault are most certainly philosophers who's work significantly deals with LGBT philosophy. If people want to argue for renaming this category, or limiting its members to a standard more strict than "They are LGBT and they are philosophers, they belong here", I'm willing to listen and discuss it. But I see very little of that among those calling for the deletion of this category. When being LGBT becomes as irrelevant as having a facial mole in this world, I too will call for the deletion of this category. Until that day, my vote stands. Keep. --
Samuel Wantman
05:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am indeed all in favor of having a category like
Category:Philosophers who write about sexuality to include thinkers like Foucault and Butler (and a bunch more not listed). That would actually speak to the reason-for-notability of philosophers with articles. Of course, those included may or may not themselves be LGBT (and likewise if it were "philosophers who write about homosexuality" of something). This kind of good category is both verifiable and encyclopedic. And it ain't the category at issue here.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 September 3 (UTC)... in fact,
being bold, I went ahead and created the actual useful category, and added a bunch of likely names to it; help add more relevant articles.
- It isn't useful to make this category inclusive of all philosophers who write about sexuality. You would be including all forms of sexuality, not just LGBT. For now, at Wikipedia, the term is LGBT. There has been much discussion about what the best name is, and no better solution has yet found a consensus. Also, what is so terrible about including philosophers who happen to be LGBT, but don't write much about sexuality? If the problem is that their sexuality may be the result of "gossip", can't that be addressed without the necessity of deleting the category? A philosopher's sexuality might be trivial to you, but who is to say that it won't be important to someone else?--
Samuel Wantman
06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, that is precisely what is useful. It speaks to the actual professional noteriety of the philosophers, and is verifiable from their works themselves. It's not just a "feel good" cheat about "those famous people are queer too, so I can feel better about myself" (which, unfortunately, seems to be the real sentiment in favor of the unencyclopedic categories). Feeling good about yourself is good, but WP ain't a therapy group. 70.109.229.212 19:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't useful to make this category inclusive of all philosophers who write about sexuality. You would be including all forms of sexuality, not just LGBT. For now, at Wikipedia, the term is LGBT. There has been much discussion about what the best name is, and no better solution has yet found a consensus. Also, what is so terrible about including philosophers who happen to be LGBT, but don't write much about sexuality? If the problem is that their sexuality may be the result of "gossip", can't that be addressed without the necessity of deleting the category? A philosopher's sexuality might be trivial to you, but who is to say that it won't be important to someone else?--
Samuel Wantman
06:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I am indeed all in favor of having a category like
Category:Philosophers who write about sexuality to include thinkers like Foucault and Butler (and a bunch more not listed). That would actually speak to the reason-for-notability of philosophers with articles. Of course, those included may or may not themselves be LGBT (and likewise if it were "philosophers who write about homosexuality" of something). This kind of good category is both verifiable and encyclopedic. And it ain't the category at issue here.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 September 3 (UTC)... in fact,
being bold, I went ahead and created the actual useful category, and added a bunch of likely names to it; help add more relevant articles.
- Keep, no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:35, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
- Keep per Seth.
Jobe
6
04:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this and any other similar categories that show up here. Guan aco 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Earlier discussion had proposed a uniform renaming of all subcats of Category:Films by director to the format Films directed by Firstname Lastname. Broader rename got lost in the shuffle and so I'll reanimate. - The Tom 21:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Yea I left it listed in unresolved discussions but guess it was removed later, figured it would get nominated soon enough. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all. - Sean Curtin 01:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. - Splash 01:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. - choster 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom. Good catch. Nandesuka 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Who is going to tag the subcats? --
Kbdank71
14:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Is there a bot that can assist with all the recatting? - choster 05:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)