Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7

Category:Meshuggah

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. I think the point that a distinction needs to be drawn between the type of "similar" categories that were deleted and the type of "similar" categories that were kept in previous CfDs is well taken. Obviously, the current situation with regards to these types is in a bit of flux, with deletion usually occurring for categories with "few" articles/subcategories and no consensus to delete or keep decisions on those that have "many". What defines and separates the "few" from the "many" is the essence of what is in flux and can only really be sussed out by accumulation of past and future precedent. In this case, most seem to feel that this is an example of a "many". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category. The band's members were in this category but I moved them all to Category:Meshuggah members per convention. Now all that's left is their albums, discography and main page, not enough for a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization and per extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per growing recent precedent. Thanks to TPH for setting up Category:Meshuggah members -- but you forgot to add it back into Category:Meshuggah. I just created Category:Meshuggah songs and added that to the parent cat, along with another article about a solo album by one of the band members. There's now enough there to justify the category. Cgingold (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well over two hundred, probably approaching three hundred by now, such categories have been deleted because they are unnecessary because the main article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. How many hundred such categories need to be deleted before it is clear that these categories are overcategorization? Otto4711 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I too think these are overcategorizations, but I'm beginning to think that it is a hopeless battle to get rid of them, and probably not worth the effort. As long as the categories like this only end up being categorized in the Category:Categories named after people hierarchy, they probably won't be very harmful. It is easier to remove them from any other categories than to fight this seemingly endless battle of removing them. So yes, I'd like to delete them, but I'm willing to relax the standards of WP:OCAT if others are as well. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the phrase "such categories" is rather misleading. While it's true that a lot of categories were deleted, most of them were rolled through in large batch CFDs, where an assortment of categories were lumped together, so there was less likelihood of each individual category receiving the level of scrutiny required to sort the wheat from the chaff. (In all honesty, these cats are not my highest priority in terms of where I allocate my limited time and energy.) Over time, however, various editors (including myself) started giving these CFDs closer scrutiny, arguing in favor of keeping those categories that we felt were justified on account of having a reasonable number of sub-cats & articles. Hence the recent trend in favor of retaining many of them. As I said just a few days ago, "If this didn't happen to be 'eponymous' we wouldn't even be talking about it." Cgingold (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cgingold - could you link to this "growing recent precedent" please? Lugnuts (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a nice convenient list at hand, but I'm happy to point you to the most recent one, for the Dixie Chicks, which was just closed as "Keep". Cgingold (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then there's the one for Julian Cope (deleted) and Aaliyah (deleted). It seems pretty clear that there is no "growing recent precedent" for keeping these categories. Otto4711 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Otto, but I just don't understand why you persist in blurring the basic distinction between the categories that are deleted and those that are kept. Very simply, those that are kept are considered to have sufficient contents to justify their existence under the ordinary WP:CAT guidelines that apply to ALL categories. As I recall, the two that you just cited fell short of that standard. Cgingold (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I'm blurring any distinctions here. You have asserted that there is an emerging consensus to keep these sorts of categories, and to support that assertion you cite a specific CFD. I cited two additional CFDs to demonstrate that there is no such across-the-board shift in consensus. I have never advocated, when the material in these categories is too complex for the main article to serve as a navigational hub, deleting such categories, nor have I advocated for a blanket deletion of all eponymous categories. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you're suggesting that I'm doing in trying to have unnecessary eponymous categories deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I have never, ever suggested that there's an "across-the-board shift in consensus". To the contrary, I have taken great care to make it clear that there is a distinction to be made between those categories that have sufficient contents to justify their existence, and those that fail to meet that standard. It is that very distinction that you've consistently blurred in your comments. Obviously, we have a very different sense of where the line should be drawn, but -- in all sincerity -- it would really help all of us in our joint effort to sort this out, if you would just take a little more care to avoid using (unintentionally, I'm sure) misleading generalities to describe things. That's really all I'm asking. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there is substantial recent precedent of 'no consensus to delete' for such categories with 2 or 3 sizeable subcats. Eg Shania Twain, Stevie_Ray_Vaughan, Rush, Rick Astley, Musicians_X-Y, Musician_categories_-_A; there are plenty of them, surprising that Otto does not recall this. A particular cfd depends on who opines, and on the closer. There are some that should obviously be deleted (2 or 3 articles in all, including those in subcats) and some that should obviously be kept (Beatles, Dylan) and inbetween there's a line to be drawn. I personally think that a related family of categories should have a parent which expresses the relationship (the union in set theory terms) - I don't see why it can be considered OCAT since the eponymous category only appears in a few top level articles and is otherwise just part of the category structure, gathering together its subcats. A 'defining characteristic' of Category:Meshuggah members and Category:Meshuggah albums is obviously Meshuggah. Occuli (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely articulated, Occuli. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said "sufficient contents to justify their existence under the ordinary WP:CAT guidelines that apply to ALL categories." I don't think anybody would argue in favor of keeping the smaller cats that fail this basic test. Cgingold (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too kind - but will Otto be convinced? '10lb hammer' still seems to think (after all this time) that articles in a subcategory are not in the parent - we might as well then delete Category:People by nationality as it is empty by the 10lb test, and then 'People' itself (3 articles - not enough to justify a category). I don't mind what the parent catgory is called - it could be 'XXX-related articles' but 'XXX' seems fine to me. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I recall that some other of these categories were misguidedly kept because of supposed lack of consensus, although why several hundred deletions of basically identical categories isn't taken into account is beyond me. Yes yes, precedent is not binding and all that but there does come a point where consistency ought to have some import. I even opined to keep Rush because it had articles in it without another logical parent. But this notion that it is so vitally important to collect member and album subcats under an eponymous cat is ludicrous. Is anyone interested in Meshuggah likely to start a search for material related to Meshuggah at the category level? Of course not. They're going to start with the band's article, which includes links to every member and every album along with a link to the discography article. The main article serves as a navigational hub for the material and there is simply no need to manufacture an eponymous parent for the sake of having a parent for the subcats when the appropriate parents already exist. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running out of different ways to say the same thing, Otto. How about, "There you go again..." (a la Ronald Reagan). When you slip in the phrase "basically identical categories" you're again blurring the distinction that I've been at great pains to point out. There is, though, another point I want to make, since it's gone unremarked so far: when you talk about the main article being a so-called "navigational hub", that completely overlooks the fact that there are no direct links to any of the categories. Sure you can get to them eventually, but then you could say that about all sorts of things. Just think of all the stuff we could eliminate on that basis! And one last thing -- even if we make the assumption that most readers will start out at the main article, that's no reason not to facilitate navigation for those readers who don't start there. Cgingold (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what if there are no links to the categories? There are links to the contents of the categories in the article. "And..."get to them eventually? You mean like by clicking the albums category link at the bottom of an album article? Wow, such a burden that places on the reader. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is line 1 of WP:Cat - "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help readers find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called." I don't agree at all that a parent cat has no function - I would much prefer all Meshuggah stuff to be there - there are album covers and other images yet to be collected together which are not on the template or in the article (and article 'as navigational hub' is a phrase of Otto's invention not found anywhere except in cfds - an article is useless as a navigational hub). Anyone who looks at Category:Album covers will see that it is badly in need of subcats. Why are we attempting to make templates fulfill the function of a family of categories? Occuli (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the notion that an article is useless as a navigational hub is untrue, as evidenced by the wide variety of actors who accept it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As parent categories for albums by x band, memebers of x band, etc. Consensus can change! Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've always thought it makes sense to have a parent category such as this operate as a hub for related subcategories rather than an article. Postdlf (talk) 19:16, 11 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.

Global warming and ozone hole skeptics categories

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, without prejudice to creation of "activist"-type categories with decent inclusion criteria. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by single issue; non-defining for most, if not all, of the entities and individuals included (e.g., Jeb Bush, Wall Street Journal). Postdlf (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Claim that category is "non-defining for most, if not all" is incorrect. Most of those listed are prominent primarily for their views on these issues, remedy in other cases is to remove the category from the article, not delete the category.JQ (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The categories themselves contain no such distinguishing criteria. As the categories exist now, if you are skeptical about global warming or the ozone hole, then you go in the category. As this merely categorizes individuals based on their position on a single issue, it is analogous to previously deleted categories such as Pro-choice politicians. Can you propose a rename that would target those for whom it is defining, and avoid the overcategorization problem? Postdlf (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable test is whether their position on GW is notable enough to be included in the article. I've removed a number of people (mostly prominent US conservatives) who don't satisfy this test, though it seems likely that they share the views of likeminded others. We could rename the categories "skepticism" rather than "skeptics" if that would help. Or I guess we could add some term like "activist" to make the point that merely assenting to the anti-AGW view is not sufficient.JQ (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically support JQ's views on keeping these categories. I would say, however, that it would probably be useful to rename them in some way to highlight the advocacy or activism of these individuals. That's the approach I'm taking in regard to Category:Critics of contraception, which I have proposed renaming to Category:Anti-contraception activists. I'm not sure at the moment what workable names might be used for these particular cats. Cgingold (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with activist categories, in line with your comments at the contraception opponents CFD. But that's really not support for keeping these categories, but rather support for creating others. We all seem to agree that these categories are overly broad because all they require is that the subject voiced an opinion on the subject. So deleting these on that ground would not prevent the creation of much more narrowly targeted categories. And we might as well start from scratch as I'd imagine that the majority of the current entries would have to be pruned even if this were treated as a "rename." I don't know that there are really any activists in this area, and we'd have a hell of a time figuring on a clear name: "anti-global warming activists" would of course sound like people taking action against global warming, not against the concept that global warming has happened. But you're welcome to try. Postdlf (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While a position may not be defining, acting on it sure is. People who act or speak as prominent global warming skeptics are a well-defined and reasonable category to keep. Oren0 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, these categories are far broader than that. I would support an appropriate rename to focus on activists in these camps, but a rename is necessary for these categories to have that criteria. Postdlf (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all An overcategorization, and the word "skeptic" is not objective enough to be the basis for a categorization (particlarly for non-people, like the Wall Street Journal). Also problematic is "former": is it for people who have changed their views, or also for people who have died? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all These are overcategorizations by point-of-view. This type of information is much better suited for a list. --☑ SamuelWantman 04:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As before (I assume votes are being reopened, if not treat this as a comment). Objections to the categorization of particular entries seem to me to weaken the case that the category itself is excessively subjective. I agree on Wall Street Journal and have removed the category, but for a lot of these entries, "global warming skeptic" is a major part of their public profile. JQ (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that the category, as currently named, permits and invites all such articles to be included, because who is a "skeptic" is not a very high threshold to meet. This is why we do not categorize articles by mere opinion, but rather narrow the category's focus to "XXX activist" categories. That limitation needs to be in the category name itself. Postdlf (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did strike your vote since you did so already. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alot of the articles don't mention it at all. The there's the whole issue of subjectivity. 'Global warming' is not a well defined concept and neither is 'skepticism' (many would claim it is either denial or politics). Seems like an over categorization to me. --neon white talk 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. I'm with Sam. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete First, despite the "consensus" and the heated debate (and dogmatic positions), GW is about science, where disagreement is a normal part of the game and allows scientific knowledge to advance. So does it make sense to have McCarthyism like categories and lists?. Second, most of the people listed under these categories are being "tagged" and I think the rules for WP:LIVE should be applied here, and I quote: "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." The articles should also be discussed. Sorry for my bluntness, but these bunch of categories and lists look like a witch hunt list. It is not ethical, moral and unfair for these people to be listed like this. I also think the participation of neutral Wiki Administrators is highly desirable, and I mean excluding in the voting those with well-known position or edit participation on articles on either side of the issue. I hope Wiki establishes some rules on GW and similar controversial topics once and for all. --Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 16 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:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel

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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I proposed either a rename to 'Category:Communal cities, towns and villages in Israel and communal settlements on the West Bank', or that the category be split in order to differentiate between the places in Israel proper and the West Bank settlements. Soman (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also considering a rename. However, I would rather we went for Category:Israeli communal settlements, which would cover all of them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

split into Category:Israeli communal settlements and Category:Communal settlements on the West Bank. The West bank is not part of Israel, even where settled by Israelis, possibly Category:Communal settlements by Israelis on the West Bank'. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 9 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.

LGBT people by religion

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 both. Depending on the outcome in deciding whether or not to include the article in Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas, it could be speedily deleted if it remains empty for four days. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both - non-notable intersection. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [amended] both Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas and Category:LGBT Hindus as part of the category tree, Category:LGBT people by religion. Delete Category:LGBT Hindus (with no prejudice to recreation) as not currently needed -- unless there are articles available to populateit -- and also as an impediment to navigation, since it only contains Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas. Notified creator of both categories with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both categories, in my opinion, since there is one known person listed so far in the Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas, and I'm sure there are a number of other people who could be added to the Category:LGBT Hindus. Come on, you know there has to be some LGBT Hindus in the world, and certainly some of them have entries on Wikipedia. Also, I would say that there is a notable intersection between Hindus and Hare Krishnas, for example, see the Category:Hindus and note that there's a subcategory in there entitled Category:Hare Krishnas. Geneisner (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Keep, Keep, because now there are five people listed in Category:LGBT Hindus, and I'm sure we can come up with more. Geneisner (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to keep adding "Keep" in bold letters with every new comment -- it's a bit distracting, and the first one was duly noted. Cgingold (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um - is this the way we do categories - "there must be some people that belong to it, so let's create the category and populate it"? I've noticed that you (Geneisner) are populating the categories without any back up information in the article - for example, adding Urvashi Vaid, Manvendra Singh Gohil, Ashok Row Kavi, Sridhar Rangayan, and Vikram Seth to Category:LGBT Hindus, even though there's nothing in their articles to indicate their religious beliefs, Hindu or otherwise. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sathya Sai Baba is definitely a Hindu, and I see that you removed the others even though you don't have any proof that any of them are NOT Hindus. Even though I bet you they were all raised as Hindus. Also, I see you removed Ashok Row Kavi even though he is in the category Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith, even though no specific faith is listed in the article either. What faith is Ashok Row Kavi? If you do a web search, some articles seem to suggest that he is a Hindu. Geneisner (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V. Hints, "I bets", and suggestions are not enough - you must be able to provide references to back up your assertions. On of Wikipedia's main tenets is that it is incumbent upon the editor wishing to add material to provide sources. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What faith is Ashok Row Kavi? If you do a web search, there are articles which state that he is a Hindu. For example, this article[1] where he is asked, "What do you have to say about the fragmented state of the gay community in India? What is this whole thing about your promoting only Hindu gays? And that you are a fanatic Hindu, always attacking other religions?" To which Ashok Row Kavi responds, " That's the most ridiculous thing and it's been said by some rather interested parties. Gays are gays whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Parsi... But there is no gain in saying that I'm a Hindu and I look at my homosexual problems from a Hindu point of view... If any Hindu priest asks me about it, we'll battle it out. The interesting thing is that I came out as a gay man in the Ramakrishna Mission where I was studying to be a monk and my counselor there, Swami Harshananda, thought it was no big deal. In fact, he drove me out saying -- this is not a place you can hide your homosexuality, go and fight for what you think is right." Those quotes are from an interview with Ashok Row Kavi from Indiatimes.com, February 6, 2004. Geneisner (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Seeing as you're new to CFD discussions, please bear in mind that we generally don't deal directly with these sorts of details here -- if the info, etc. is available, just put it into the articles and add the appropriate categories. CFD deals with what already exists in terms of articles, and makes decisions on that basis about what makes sense in terms of categories. In short, if you (or anybody else) can come up with articles that rightly belong in a category that's up for deletion, that has every likelihood of changing the result of the CFD. Cgingold (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All apologies if I didn't follow standard protocol for CFD discussions, this is the first CFD discussion I've been involved in. The point I was trying to make is that there are some notable LGBT Hindus out there, there are references to back this up, and that this is significant enough for categorical inclusion on Wikipedia, especially since there are categories such as Category:LGBT Muslims, Category:LGBT Jews, and Category:Christian LGBT people. The Hare Krishnas are a type of Hindu sect, and that is why LGBT Hare Krishnas should be listed as a subcategory of LGBT Hindus, similarly as Category:Hindus contains Category:Hare Krishnas as a subcategory. I guess that is what I was trying to say all along, and again, I would like to apologize to everyone if I didn't follow standard protocol for CFD discussions. Thank you all for your patience and discussion. Geneisner (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've amended my !vote to Keep for both categories, with the addition of Ashok Row Kavi to the category (along with supporting info). However, I've left a note at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba taking issue with his inclusion in the category. Cgingold (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hare Krishna - Kirtananda Swami did not come out of the closet, nor is there any record of LGBT activity on his part. Ditto for Satya SaiBaba. WP:BLP is very strict on this. One requirement is that "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;". Neither of them do, neither belong in this category. The Hindu category is legitimate inasmuch as it is part of a larger religionwide supercat (and there are famous LGBT Hindus), the Hare Krishna cat isnt.Pectore^talk 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtanananda Swami (Keith Gordon Ham) admitted that he had a homosexual relationship with Howard Morton Wheeler (Hayagriva) for many years, and this is documented in the film Holy Cow Swami, a documentary movie by Jacob Young (WVEBA, 1996). There is court testimony shown in that movie where Kirtanananda admits this in a court of law too. Here's a clip of Kirtanananda with the court transcript where he was asked, "Back in the 1950s and early 60s, were you homosexual?" Kirtanananda replies, "Yes."[2] Geneisner (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later in the video, he says he got over his "gay phase" and that he is celibate. Therefore the youtube video (which is not RS) doesn't satsfy criteria for BLP.Pectore^talk 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But even later in the video (if you watch) you will see that he actually NEVER got over his "gay phase", because he was caught being "intimate" with a boy during the "Winnebago Incident" of 1993. This is documented. Here are the video clips, starting at 7:54 in this clip[3], as well as this clip[4]. Also, there's this part in the article too: "On September 10, 2000, the ISKCON Child Protection Office concluded a 17-month investigation and determined that Kirtanananda had molested two boys. He was prohibited from visiting any ISKCON properties for five years and offered conditions for reinstatement within ISKCON." (Quote from Official Decision on the Case of Kirtanananda Das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection September 10, 2000.) Kirtanananda is a homosexual, and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Or, are you one of those people who believes that a gay person somehow can become "ungay"? And even if he isn't a "practicing homosexual" now, or whatever, he is still a homosexual by his very nature because that is who he is based on his own admission, his own actions, and plenty of evidence. Geneisner (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneisner, whether the category has one entry or none doesn't make a whole lot of difference, in the grand scheme of things. This discussion is supposed to be on whether or not the category should be kept, not whether one person is gay or not. I'd invite you to bring up arguments on the talk page of that article, and perhaps to join us over at the LGBT WikiProject. We've had several discussions on whether or not a particular person can be put in an LGBT category, and have worked out guidelines on the subject that reflect BLP and other concerns. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will discuss this elsewhere, but I think the category should be kept because I doubt Kirtanananda is the only gay Hare Krishna out there. Oh, and he is gay, but that's another issue. Sorry to argue with you so much, I have nothing against you or anything. I agree that we should try and get accurate information. Sorry again for arguing with you so much. Geneisner (talk) 23:14, 12 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:LGBT actors from Germany

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, without prejudice to a future, broader nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all three: Not a significant intersection. Wikipedia has very few categories of the intersection of sexuality, occupation, and location - these don't seem to be notable in any way and are sparsely populated. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Why nominate these three and not Category:LGBT actors from the United States and Category:LGBT actors from the United Kingdom? Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially because the US, UK, and Canadian cats are established and these are new. Partially because those cats are full and these new ones are pretty empty. Partially because the US and UK cats have subcats, which I didn't feel like addressing with this nom. And partially because I feel the whole LGBT people structure needs to be addressed, but that's more than I can handle today. =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One day, my friends, we will have category intersection. Oh what a wonderful day that will be. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been up & running for a couple of months -- but it's not in the most user-friendly form that one might wish for at this point. Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Part of a larger agenda and the categories are part of a broader structure. We really need to discuss this from the top down. This limited discussion is not the right place for the larger discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we do need to discuss this from the top down, but letting the current situation creep isn't helping anything. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- I think you will find that gay actors is a significnat intersection, though probably not the rest of LGBT. I would suggest that the entertainment professions are an exception for this and sexuality is not a significant intersection elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion here isn't about Category:LGBT actors, but the creation of a subcat that intersects *three* things - sexuality, place, and occupation. That's too specific, by WP guidelines. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Upmerge -- I take the point over the triple intersection. These are undesirable unless they can be substantially populated. As the three nominated categories have a total population of about 5, retention of the nominated category is perhaps inappropriate for now, but without prejudice to recreation if they can be populated adequately. This should not be extended to fellow sub-cats, unless they too cannot be adequaqtely populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - It always matters when LGBT people are out of the closet in very public lives, and where they live matters, too, in somewhat different ways depending on the country. Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 10 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:British transgender people

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, without prejudice to a future, broader nomination to settle naming issues. And a 'tsk tsk' to SatyrTN for emptying the category just prior to nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete for three reasons:

We have no other categories of this type ("Transgender people from Xlvania" and/or "Xlvanian transgender people")
It's improper - the other trans categories are all "Transgender and transsexual widgeters"
It's redundant to the categories Category:LGBT people from England, Category:LGBT people from Scotland, Category:LGBT people from Wales, and/or Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom.

SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1) This is not a reason for deletion. We have other categories for transgender people; why not "Transgender and transsexual people by nationality"? 2) This is a straightforward renaming issue. 3) It's not redundant because Transgender and LGBT are not the same thing. That said, I have no real opinion on whether or not a scheme of categorisation for "Transgender and transsexual people by nationality" is desirable. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Part of a larger agenda and the categories are part of a broader structure. We really need to discuss this from the top down. This limited discussion is not the right place for the larger discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, I can understand why you would say that for the three above, but this one is in no way helpful. There's absolutely no reason to keep the intersection between sexuality and place, and it's an incorrect place at that. Please reconsider? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a larger issue. I feel that this deletion would not be wise without taking into account the entire picture. Doing selective deletions when we have a larger topic to discuss is not always the correct course of action. Without understanding how this is being addressed over this whole universe, I believe that keeping is the best choice right now. When the big picture is presented that shows this category should be deleted, then I'll reconsider. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Is this about people who have changed sex or people who (due to a genetic disorder) have characteristics of both sexes. In any case "gender" is the wrong word unless you imply some people have neuter gender. The correct term is transsexual. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehhh, it's not quite as cut and dried as that. Transsexual implies a binary nature to sexuality, and only awkwardly handles such things as people who identify as neither male nor female but "other", or hijra and travesti. And I think the somewhat confused nature of our articles on transsexual and transgender reflect the currently unsettled nature of the academic discourse. Ford MF (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A subcat of the LGBT cats, but not redundant. Ford MF (talk) 21:34, 9 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:4th century BC Roman people

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 all. Kbdank71 14:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:4th century BC Roman people to Category:4th century BC Romans

Also Category:4th century Roman people to Category:4th century Romans

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename for continuity with other ancient people categories, which use substantive adjectives (Category:Ancient Romans, Category:Ancient Greeks, e.g.) instead of the adjective + people formula. Ford MF (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the proposed name is identical to the existing name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was obviously a typo. Ford MF (talk) 22:39, 7 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:Lesbians of Color

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) 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We have routinely deleted categories of this intersection, if I recall correctly. Category:LGBT people has no other intersection of this type. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Too many ambiguities in this subject to be of practical interest. Raymondwinn (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We routinely have ethnicity intersection categories (e.g. Category:African American non-fiction writers), but usually an intersection of occupation + identity, not identity + identity. Additionally, I think "of color" is overbroad and POV, and I'm less troubled by divisions like Category:African American lesbians (although I still think it's questionable). "Of color" defines no encyclopedically useful attribute, merely the relative coloration of the skin of the articles' subjects. Ford MF (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the same reasons that all previous "of color" categories have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 7 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:Murdered pregnant women

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorisation, with two unrelated facts. We do not have any categories for topics such as "murdered black men", "murdered women with red hair", "people murdered whilst driving", and so on. It has no encyclopedic value. Being creepy is not a valid reason for deletion, so I have tried to couch this in other ways. Neıl ☄ 15:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of a pregnant woman is considered double murder in many jurisdictions, so I do not think the other examples are comparable. — CharlotteWebb 15:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which jurisdictions, please? Our articles aren't great on this - we have Murder of pregnant women, born alive rule, feticide, Unborn Victims of Violence Act, double murder and murder, all of which give mixed messages and don't give much detail on this; as best I can tell, the only country that does have any kind of explicit distinction is the United States. That makes retaining this category very nation-centric. Neıl ☄ 08:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 52 different criminal jurisdictions within the United States, so even if only some of them do this there could be quite a few. According to feticide, 35 states recognise it, plus the federal jurisdiction, so there's at least 36 jurisdictions just within the U.S., which is not insignificant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with Category:Murdered police officers and its subcats, many jurisdictions make an explicit legal distinction between these murders and the murders of other citizens. We are used to thinking about different categories of offender (guilty of murder, vs guilty of manslaughter), but unused to thinking about categories of victim because the law largely does not distinguish between the offended parties, but on occasion it does. And this is one of those occasions. Ford MF (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my question to Charlotte above, please. Neıl ☄ 08:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Charlotte and Ford; this certainly is a notable intersection, in light of the existing laws of many jurisdictions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my question to Charlotte above, please. Neıl ☄ 08:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Murders of pregnant women aren't merely "creepy" -- they are in fact considered to be a social phenomenon worthy of sociological and journalistic inquiry (as evidenced by a widely noted series of articles in the Washington Post). Cgingold (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I explained myself badly there - I'm not so much calling the murders creepy as I am the need to categorise them in this manner. Neıl ☄ 08:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP that invented the study of this area, as Cgingold points out. Many of the articles in the category would not exist, i.e., the victim would not be notable, had they not been pregnant. Whether this is a U.S. phenomenon or not is irrelevant, in my opinion. The fact of the matter is many of these murder victims are notable and were talked about (ad nauseum, in many cases) not because they were female murder victims but because they were pregnant murder victims. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the idea that murdering a pregnant woman is "double murder" is not universal and this category gives undue weight to the notion that murdering a pregnant woman is worse than murdering a non-pregnant woman. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If anything that only means that there should be a {{catmore|feticide}} at the head of the page, to give proper context. I'm not aware of any requirement that states categories must be "universal". Ford MF (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant subset of murder victims that, like Category:Murdered children (and unlike most of the people categories we see here), has already been the subject of study, commentary, and legislation. Postdlf (talk) 17:27, 11 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:Diaoyu Islands protection movement activists

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly rename?) - The name of this category is a prima facie violation of WP:NPOV: These islands are a disputed island group currently held by Japan, but also claimed by China and Taiwan. Japan refers to them as the Senkaku Islands (where the main article is located) -- whereas the category name apparently refers to a Chinese/Taiwanese movement, as the articles (many of which are stubs) appear to be about Chinese and Taiwanese activists. The category's creator -- who identifies himself as a resident of Hong Kong -- also placed it in a non-existent parent cat, Category:Diaoyu Islands. There might be a case for renaming this rather than deleting it, but I will leave that for someone else. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people in this category are recognized activists of Diaoyu Islands sovereignty movement in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.Ricky@36 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This comment from the category's creator was moved from the place where it was posted (in the August 8 CFDs). Cgingold (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you didn't leave your response in the right place, so you did not see my remarks above. To reiterate, I understood that these individuals are as you described them -- but that wasn't the problem. The problem, as I explained, is that it isn't a neutral category name. Cgingold (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless we can get some sort of answers to the following. I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with such a category, so long as the name corresponds to the reality of what the people stand for. Certainly, the name that should be used for the category is "Senkaku Islands", since that is the current name of the article. I would suggest a rename to Category:Senkaku Islands sovereignty activists or Category:Senkaku Islands secession activists or even Category:Senkaku Islands secessionists, but I'm not at all convinced that these individuals are all actually in favour of sovereignty for the islands. They may instead (and I find this to be quite likely) just be in favour of Taiwanese/Chinese control of the islands. That would be an interpretation that is more in line with the current name, in which case maybe we could come up with something else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 13 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:Nature and natural science templates

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) 00:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nature and natural science templates to Category:Science and nature templates

Nominator's rationale: This is a second and hopefully better idea following this recent proposal. (Sorry not to've thought of it before making that proposal.) Suggest "Science and nature" an improvement as it's more succinct and removes the repetition in "Nature...natural..." Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:40, 7 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:Albums produced by Joe Walsh

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; rationale for deletion no longer exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one solo production credit. Pointless category; as established with Category:Albums produced by Robert Ellis Orrall, a producer should have at least a couple solo credits to warrant a category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Hammer (a first, I believe). A category with only one article is functionally the same thing as an empty category. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see 10 articles, with 4 solo credits. Occuli (talk) 19:41, 8 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:Space Marine Chapters

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:Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) and delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category has one article in it, and it is up for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge if it isn't deleted already. 70.55.203.50 (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could have just waited and used WP:CSD#C1. Pagra shtak 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, something else popped up in it. Upmerge. Pagra shtak 19:49, 12 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.