Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 22



Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo alumni

 * 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/keep. Kbdank71 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo alumni >> Category:Cal Poly alumni.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationale: The name is just too long for no good reason.  It should be renamed to something much simpler. Its current name offers a level of precision greater than the main article itself.  At most it should be Category:California Polytechnic State University alumni, but really Category:Cal Poly alumni would fit predominant vernacular and also the way redirects have been set up for the school's main page.  Cal Poly currently takes you only to the SLO school's page, so that's how the category for its alumni should be set up.  "Cal Poly" means the SLO campus.  "Cal Poly, Pomona" means the other one.  Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I sympathize with your concern re the l-e-n-g-t-h-y name, but given that there are in fact two Cal Poly's, Category:Cal Poly alumni simply won't do. I myself could probably live with, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly with other editors. Perhaps ?. Cgingold (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, believe me, I have absolutely no axe to grind in the "battle of the two Cal Polys". But it does seem odd that the main pages themselves refer to one as Cal Poly and the other as Cal Poly, Pomona. And of the two official seals, only the Pomona one actually includes a city in it.  One is very definitely an unmodified name, where as the other one is "the Cal Poly in Pomona". This shouldn't be held up by those who have a vested interest in the distinction (i.e., the alumni themselves).  Like all naming disputes, it should be settled by the most common English usage, which clearly makes SLO "Cal Poly", and Pomona "Cal Poly, Pomona".   Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, Category:Cal Poly alumni is a non-starter. Category names need to be clear and unambiguous, so can I assure you that nobody will sign off on "Cal Poly alumni". Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would a mere cat name be held to some higher standard than the actual article pages, though? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me that the article to which the cat links can be "only" Cal Poly, while the cat itself is so long and convoluted that it defies easy use?  I mean, the article itself has successfully been renamed, why can't the category?  Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  00:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Category names in general are held to a somewhat higher standard in order to avoid confusion and inadvertent misuse. Cgingold (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Cal Poly was linking to the SLO campus article until just a few minutes ago.  Now suddenly it's onto a disputed disambig page without any record of a change in the history?  How's THAT possible?  I give up; something weird is going on here. Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍


 * Rename to Category:California Polytechnic State University alumni per California Polytechnic State University (and consider renaming Category:California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo likewise). I'm not sure how recognisable Cal Poly is outside the US (in the UK Calpol is medicinal). Occuli (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Question #1: What do they call themselves? California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (note the comma) per homepage and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (another comma) per home page (look at the copyright notice at the bottom.) They both also abbreviate their names to some version of "Cal Poly".
 * "Question #2: What do others call them? USA Today: CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN LUIS OBISPO and CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY-POMONA per this American Association of State Colleges and Universities: Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo and California State Polytechnic University, Pomona per this


 * Based on the above, it looks to me like these both should have, . - jc37 04:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rename - per my comments above. - jc37 04:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per jc37. Category names need to be unambiguous, and "Cal Poly" is virtually unrecognisable to someone who is unfamiliar with the culture of the university. The fact that there are apparently two universities with the name only further complicates matters. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Patient organizations

 * 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 Category:Patient advocacy organizations to Category:Patients' organizations - jc37 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

patient advocacy organizations patients' organizations
 * Merge two overlapping, apparently redundant categories. It could be "merge one into the other", or "merge both together and rename" -- as long as we end up with one category. I'm leaning somewhat towards, but I'm completely open to other possibilities. It probably depends somewhat on how the scope of the category is viewed/defined. (For instance, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America turns up in both of the existing categories -- but judging by what the article says, it appears to have only a limited role as either a "Patients' organization" or a "Patient advocacy organization".)  Cgingold (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Category:Patient advocacy organizations does bring to mind Category:Impatient advocacy organizations. Occuli (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, what is this, Bad Pun Day?? Cgingold (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, but to Category:Patients' organizations or Category:Patients' advocacy organizations; joking or not, Occuli has a good point about ambiguity. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Patients' organizations. Seems to be more NPOV.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:People by country by period

 * 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 (category has remained empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * people by country by period


 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:People by nationality and period. It contained one item- Category:Singaporean people by period, which I have moved to the latter category. --Eliyak T · C 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Cgingold (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An obvious delete. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, but consider leaving this as a category redirect. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Pixies

 * 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: sprinkled with Pixie dust and Renamed to Category:Pixies (band) : ) - jc37 04:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pixies ; Delete: again, musician who is not deserving of own category. Each subcat is contained in another cat. No real content besides discog/tributes article. Cosprings (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to Category:Pixies (band) per below - substantial category, 52 articles, 4 subcats. Occuli (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, for those who say that the template serves to navigate amongst the songs, the category Category:Pixies songs contains 17 articles (one of which is a list with 17 songs) and the template 9 (singles as opposed to songs). Which confirms my suspicion that editors are more likely to add songs to a category than to a template, and that the 3 - list, category, template - are all complementary and should be compared from time to time to update each other. Occuli (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as parent category for Pixies albums, band members, etc.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: What does it mean to say "not deserving"? Cgingold (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And rename to avoid confusion, yes. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; this seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and there is clearly more than enough (further subcategorized) content for this category. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)  Update: and rename per Grutness. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to - given that we have an article Pixie this could prove ambiguous (I suspect there are probably several fictional pixies somewhere that may end up categorised in here if we're not careful). Grutness...wha?  21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to per Grutness. Cgingold (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to per Grutness. Honestly, when I saw the category listed in the index, I thought it was for Tinkerbell and friends. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way – the category was not tagged (I believe I have fixed this). Occuli (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And commons cat Pixies contains a non-musical pixie. Occuli (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sprinkle it with pixie dust and rename it to Category:Pixies (band). LA (T) @ 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am almost always in favor of these container categories for musicians, especially when there are so many subcategories. I would not rename either as this matches the main article. If the article is at "Pixies" so should be the category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Citizens of TwoChairs

 * 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 (now empty; has been replaced with user category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * citizens of twochairs


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-notable category; no full articles. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved: I have since moved the category to a user category, which is Category:Wikipedians who are citizens of TwoChairs. Cadan   ap   Tomos  20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Tainan

 * Relisted to Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 29. - jc37 04:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Media based on media match up

 * 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 on "programs". (Incidentally, note that "easier" does not necessarily make it right. Feel free to re-nominate series/shows/programs/programmes.) Rename the (non-stricken) rest. - jc37 04:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Books based on television series → Category:Books based on television programs
 * Category:Films based on fiction books → Category:Films based on novels
 * Category:Films based on short fiction → Category:Films based on short stories - see reason for removal below.
 * Category:Films based on television series → Category:Films based on television programs
 * Category:Musicals based on short stories → Category:Musicals based on short fiction - addition from bottom
 * Category:Musicals based on television shows → Category:Musicals based on television programs
 * Category:Plays based on fiction books → Category:Plays based on novels
 * Category:Plays based on short fiction → Category:Plays based on short stories - see reason for removal below.
 * Category:Role-playing games based on comic books → Category:Role-playing games based on comics
 * Category:Role-playing games based on television series → Category:Role-playing games based on television programs

This is to match up one of the items in the category names with other categories of the same type. LA (T) @ 10:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename: Makes sense to me. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 11:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)  Agree with comments below about "program/programme" issue; don't care what solution is selected. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, see below. LA
 * Oppose those using the word "programs". Series is a better compromise as there is no difference between American and British spelling. Tim! (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim! It is easier to get 3 out of 17 renamed than 14 out of 17. If you wish I can get you the list of the 14 categories which use "television programs" in them. Also, if you look at some UK programs, they use the word series where the US uses season, see Doctor Who, Torchwood, and The Sarah Jane Adventures. LA (T) @ 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello my lady - may I suggest we create as a sub-category of  rather than renaming them? Then items which are, say, based on short fiction would still have a home. Her Pegship  (tis herself)  22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dearest Pegship, it is so nice to see you here. I thought there was already a category called Films based on short fiction. LA
 * Television objection. Leaving to one side the other cats under discussion, I agree with Tim!, above, that the difference in US/UK spelling of "program/programme" is problematic. But I also take note of Lady Aleena's point.  What if we just dropped both words?  Is there something problematic with Category:Books based on television?  I don't find compelling the argument that "it's easier to get 3 out of 17 renamed than 14 out of 17".  We should be searching for the most regionally-neutral syntax.   Czech Out   ☎ |  ✍  23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim!'s issue is series/program not programme/program. The generally accepted term is program instead of series for titling. CzechOut, you would not believe the objections you would get to your suggestion, since television by itself is just a box with moving pictures on it, not the moving pictures themselves. Trust me, please don't go there. I got headaches trying to get a television by genre category saved (didn't work) since televisions don't have genres, the moving pictures on them do. LA

I am removing the two short fiction categories from the list after reconsideration of how narrow short stories would be. They would do better to stay as they are since short fiction covers both short stories and novellas, both of which could be separated out if needed sometime in the future.

If it isn't too late, I would like to add Category:Musicals based on short stories for renaming to Category:Musicals based on short fiction to match the two that I removed from consideration. LA (T) @ 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I found another category. Category:Musicals based on television shows to Category:Musicals based on television programs to be consistent with the other 14 categories already so named. Can this be added here, or should I just relist this? LA (T) @ 11:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Here is a category grid that has all the correct category names. LA (T) @ 11:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support just adding them here: Consistency is a Good Thing, and the issue is simple enough that a relisting seems unwarranted. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 13:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support all, including the fiction books-->novels rename. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Olympic female footballers of Japan

 * 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 to Category:Olympic footballers of Japan. Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Olympic female footballers of Japan to Category:Olympic footballers of Japan
 * Nominator's rationale: Too specialized. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom here and per my nomination at below. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge because there seems to be no other attempt to introduce gender cats into the Olympics (although I must say I can see no reason whatever why this should be the case, as the Olympics are 'gendered' throughout apart from the mixed doubles in badminton, equestrian matters and perhaps a few others). Occuli (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a nascent attempt to separate, rightly, listing female footballers from their male counterparts, as, per Occuli's comments, football is not a mixed sport Mayumashu (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just because the actual events (and even leagues, etc.) are not mixed does not make a good rationale for gender-based division; there is nothing remarkable about women playing football (soccer) (or being businesspeople, or driving cars, or whatever). If there were ever a female NFL or NHL pro, different story. Another different story is women's literature, which as someone else noted is an entire area of academia unto itself (I don't see any evidence of women's soccer being an independent area of research, study and theory). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Neutral. There's no problem having them separate, since they compete separately and women's soccer/football is a separate area of research and study. For just one example, see the 2004 book Soccer, Women, Sexual Liberation: Kicking Off a New Era by Fan Hong and J. A. Mangan, ISBN 0714655090. See also A Game for Rough Girls?: A History of Women's Football in England by Jean Williams ISBN 0415263387. Just do a few searches in google scholar and you'll see that there's quite a bit of published research in journals that is exclusively focused on women's soccer, especially in medical journals. (Starting off with the superbly named "Women's soccer injuries in relation to the menstrual cycle and oral contraceptive use".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: I meant generally. :-) If you look for it, you can find papers on how to split planarians heads in half, but we don't need a category for that.  For almost any topic one can imagine, someone somewhere has written an academic paper about it, because there are more academics now, and more every day, living and active longer, than at any other time in history, while the number of topics one can reasonably research has not grown at the same rate, while the number of themes within most topics that are unexplored has naturally shrunk drastically. Women's football is not generally treated as a separate area of inquiry the way that women's literature is, was the point I was getting at.  I didn't mean to seem to imply that no one anywhere has ever thought of approaching the sport in that way. I even recently read a book on the anthropology and sociology of Barbie and the doll's accessories from an LGBT perspective. If it can be thought of, someone has probably already written a treatise on it by now! Heh. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The books I cited are not particularly "academic" in approach—they are the type of book you can find in popular bookstores. In any case, having the genders separate could make it easier to find the information via browsing, since you could approach the information via Japanese football players or female sportspeople. This is one of the main purposes of categories. However, I'm changing my opinion to neutral, mainly because there's no pre-existing structure for this to fall into, and I was mistakenly thinking more in the lines of Category:Japanese female footballers, forgetting this was an Olympians category. But I don't think the division into male/female footballer Olympians should be necessarily 100% precluded. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, and my prior comment above. I slightly lean more toward that such categories could conceivably be valid, but as others have noted there's no organized structure of this sort of thing yet. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Restaurant 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: administrative close; no categories nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: I am pretty much managing the WP Food and Drink Foodsevice task force myself and need to categorize the myriad of restaurant templates that the project uses. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 08:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sub-groups needed -
 * Restaurant Navigation templates
 * Restaurant Infobox templates


 * Why is this here? This is Categories for discussion (generally deletion and merge discussion). If you need a category, just go create it. The parent categories you want are Category:Arts and culture navbox templates and Category:Food infobox templates, inconsistent as they may be, I would guess (as well as Category:WikiProject Food and drink templates, of course). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First time doing it really, I don't like doing stuff like this cause I don't like arbitrarily mucking about. What are the heading templates that go on these? --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't need any. You could just add a sentence or two at the top explaining what they are, and put on their talk pages. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode X

 * 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 ("genus containing only 4 species" not equal to "category contains only 4 articles"). Kbdank71 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Some more plant categories created by User:Polbot which are useless and should be deleted for the following reasons, generally that they are cats for genera which contain only a few species and thus will not have more than a few articles in them. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Xolocotzia - monotypic genus (contains only one species) - not enough for a whole category. Delete and upmerge to Category:Verbenaceae, the next highest taxon.
 * Category:Tectona - genus containing only 3 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Verbenaceae.
 * Category:Rhaphithamnus - genus containing only 2 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Verbenaceae.
 * Category:Scutinanthe - genus containing only 4 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Burseraceae.
 * Category:Romeroa - genus containing only 1 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Bignoniaceae.
 * Category:Blutaparon - genus containing only 4 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Amaranthaceae.
 * Category:Irenella - genus containing only 2 species. Delete and upmerge to Category:Amaranthaceae.
 * Edit: for precedents: here are previous deletion discussions for similar nominations:
 * Episode IX
 * Episode VIII
 * etc


 * Keep if 2 or more, upmerge if 1 only. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The category structure only needs to duplicate the taxonomic classification as far as it is useful for navigation. --Eliyak T · C 18:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if 3 (2 may not be enough) or more, Upmerge if 1 only. LA (T) @ 03:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what's happened here, but as of this timestamp there is only one article in each category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To the closer Please keep this open until it can be determined what has happened in terms of the category membership (as noted by Good Ol’factory above). I'm hoping that someone didn't intentionally (disruptively) make these single-member cats after noting some of the comments above. - jc37 04:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The genus categories were automatically created by a bot after it wrote an article about a species in that genus. It did that whether the genus contains 1 species, 3 species, or 900 species. I've been going through and moving articles from family cats to genus cats if the genus contains at least 6 or 7 species according to a Google search for these genera; I usually use PlantSystematics.org (example here is genus Romeroa from this discussion) to find out how many species a genus contains. Some genera are hard to find info about - those I just leave alone for someone else to wrangle with. If a genus has 5 or fewer species I generally nominate the bot-created genus cat for deletion. The five species in that genus can be categorized under their family. Unless taxonomy for these genera changes (which is possible, but not likely in the near future), there will never be more than 6 articles in these cats. If it does change and suddenly there's a burning need for a cat for the genus, we can create one. If the bot had been using some kind of sense in creating these genera cats, it would have created cats for the genera that contain 500 or 1000 or 2000 species. That would have been useful. But it didn't, because it's a bot, and it doesn't use sense. So it created a gazillion cats for genera that contain 1, 3, 5 species each - not useful. So now we have a gazillion dumb cats for piddly genera and no cats for many genera that have 1000 species. The reason that there is currently only one species in each of the nominated cats is because the bot only created one species article, and then created a genus article for it, and a cat for that genus. It never wrote any more articles for species in that genus if there are more than one - I think somebody programmed it to write articles only for species that are on the plant version of the IUCN Red List. I'm just trying to clean this mess up. Nothing I'm doing here is going to damage anything, and it's certainly not disruptive. In fact, it is an attempt to improve plant categorization. I know this is confusing, especially for people who aren't into taxonomy or who aren't familiar with the bot that did all this junk, so I haven't really explained my process until now. Hopefully it's a little clearer. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Borders of former countries

 * 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 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Borders of the former Soviet Union to Category:Borders of the Soviet Union
 * Category:Borders of the former Yugoslavia to Category:Borders of Yugoslavia
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename both. Usually in category names we simply use "Yugoslavia" or "the Soviet Union" and don't bother with "the former" since it's redundant. We have Category:Borders of Czechoslovakia, for example. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've seen FY refer to the pre-breakup Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia represent the Federation of Serbia and Montenegro... 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In WP categories? I'm not aware of such a use. But yes, of course it's found elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per seeming convention of Category:Soviet Union and Category:Yugoslavia. - jc37 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Female pool players

 * 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 to delete at this time. Kbdank71 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * female pool players


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:CATGRS and WP:OVERCAT. This has sat long enough with a "no consensus".
 * Outline summary rationale (see previous "no consensus" CfD for the more detailed rationale and discussion, including much background information) :
 * This fails WP:CATGRS ("Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic") as arbitrary, pointless gendering of a category: There is nothing rare or special about female players, and women's pool is not different in any notable, encyclopedic way from men's, nor discriminated against in modern times. Women do not play the game in any known way, mentally or physically, differently than men. This is categorization by genitals, pure and simple.
 * It fails WP:OVERCAT ("Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated, even if some person can be found that has both traits", etc.) as a trivial intersection: There is nothing notable or deeply related about "pool player" and "female" being juxtaposed).
 * The comparatively small number of articles on women players is simply an incidental effect of editor attention; there are hundreds of potential articles.
 * Pro competitions are either divided into M and F divisions, or are open and ungendered; no major events bar either gender aside from the all-female WPBA and all-male counterpart USPPA (neither US-only) which are on good terms with each other and both BCA-sanctioned. Sports-as-usual, except pool is actually less gender-divided than most.
 * The articles are already sorted by nationality, so a merge is not necessary, and there is no huge pile of unsorted pool player articles, or anything like that.

—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)  Rewritten 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per 'keep' rationale of previous "no consensus" CfD on 10 Apr 2008. Occuli (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Can you clarify? The closing admin's "keep" rationale was simply "no consensus". The !voters' "keep" rationales were all over the map, in some cases directly mutually contradictory, so it is very unclear what you mean by "per 'keep' rationale of previous...CfD".  To quote a salient comment from the previous CfD (I'm not sure whether from a "keep", "delete" or simply "comment" !voter; it doesn't really matter, as it speaks for itself): "the core [CATGRS] criterion that needs to be met is that a properly encyclopedic article could be written to explain why the grouping in question is a valid encyclopedic topic. For instance, the women writers tree is valid not just because writers exist who are women, but because women's literature is generally recognized as a distinct domain within the study of literature."  There is no Women in pool or Women's pool article, and almost certainly never will be, because "women's pool" is not, unlike women's literature, recognized as any kind of distinct domain within the relevant field. It really is just that pool players exist who are women, just like businesspeople and entrepreneurs exist who are women (the fact that the WPBA exists is not relevant; there are loads of women-in-business organizations and clubs - my ex used to run one - but that doesn't make the intersection notable for WP purposes).  And both CATGRS and OVERCAT are at issue here, anyway. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 11:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You really need to get away from the idea that hectoring repetition will carry the day. Just make the nom in a minimum number of words and keep quiet. See my comments in the previous cfd to be more precise - I am not going to repeat them. Occuli (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In your previous-CfD comments, your only concern seems to be that the WPA international tournament (one among many) has men's and women's divisions, but I've already addressed this - some pool tournaments are gendered divided, and some aren't, and so what? How is is that determinative that we must have gendered categories in this particular case? I.e., I'm asking you to explain your position more fully. That's not hectoring, it's just discussion, with an eye to understanding. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC) PS: In response to your objection, I have reduced the nom rationale to about 1/3 its original size. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 12:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think a shorter nom is more effective, so I welcome this change. My personal view is that if Ms X and Mr Y of equal abilities are not both eligible for some competitions/jobs/occupations then there is a gender difference and so gender categories are justified. Another criterion is whether one could write an article on 'Female pool players' – I think one could be written, and you think not. There have been quite a few cfds on similar topics (eg female models or was it male ones?) which tend to generate a wordy lack of consensus. Occuli (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I do think such an article could be written, just that it would be poor and spotty, and likely be full of NPoV violations as an agenda-pushing piece, since there isn't really a cohesive backstory to report on in reality.  PS: I think it was male models.
 * This is off topic (but then so is much of this thread), but I personally think that that was a rather poor thing to say, and incorrect at that. First, A nominator is welcome to have a nomination as long as it needs to be to convey the information necessary. There is no limit on that. Nor is there a limit on how often someone may comment in a discussion. (I found the "keep quiet" rather offensive, actually.) Now all of that said, it is typically advisable to keep things as concise (and civil) as possible, due to potential editor fatigue. - jc37 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as overcategorization based on sex and per the excellent reasoning of the nominator, both here and at the original CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Occuli and per my own remarks in the previous CFD. I did read thru SMcCandlish's arguments here, but I saw nothing really new that would lead me to reconsider my views. Cgingold (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Occuli's reasoning above at the Olympic category, that navigation is better served with such a category around, because (to translate those comments to this particular situation) it can be found through Category:Sportswomen by sport as well as Category:Pool players, is interesting. I'm not totally convinced, but I'm no longer firmly holding a "this is a totally stupid #@$*ing category" attitude, either.  That said, I still think it transgresses both of the guidelines cited, and that if consensus wants categories like this (as opposed to gendered ones that are justifiable under those guidelines as they currently read), then consensus has to change those guidelines, not make piecemeal exceptions for categories like this one. (I.e., I'm switching my focus from "this category in particular sucks" to "fix this at the source if there's a real problem here, otherwise delete as usual"). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Almost neutral on this, but the fact that there are professional leagues (and tournaments) by gender (why, I'm not sure, in this case), causes me to lean slightly to keep. - jc37 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 Hindus

 * 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: Speedy close.  This discussion really belongs at Deletion review given how short the time period was since the last nomination.  It also appears that this may be a WP:POINT or WP:Disruptive editing nomination.  In any case, the reason for the nomination is not valid in and of itself.  In fact a category with one member is valid and can exist.  Size is not in and of itself a reason for deletion.  Finally, it would appear that most of what was contained in these categories has been removed since the two nominated categories now contain a grand total of one article. That would also be an out of process change.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * lgbt hindus


 * Nominator's rationale: Less then 5 entries. Wikidās ॐ 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - The nominator should withdraw this CFD. If he had checked the edit history first he would have seen that the category was Kept at CFD earlier this month. Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The previous CfD assumed that many pages will be added to the category. It is only one at this stage, thus previous CfD should be reconsidered. Wikidās ॐ 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As closer of the last nomination, I don't think it was a consensus position that the category would be deleted unless "many pages" were added to it. I certainly said nothing to that effect in closing it. Those who voted to keep seemed to base their decision partly on it being part of a larger scheme of LGBT people by religion, in which case the size of the category is irrelevant, as long as it's not empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: I don't buy that rationale at all; it's a trivial intersection, per WP:OVERCAT. What next? Category:LGBT pool players?  One problem here is that a false assumption is being made that every religion on the earth disparages homosexuality, which is not true.  Category:Christian LGBT people (what's up with the weird backwards name format?) kinda arguably makes sense because the juxtaposition is (at least historically speaking) an unusual and notable one - Christian authorities used to burn homosexuals at the stake and otherwise torture and murder them. The Muslim one as well. Is this true of Hinduism?  "Part of a [supposed] scheme" is not sufficient justification; I could make up any number of "schemes", but just because they are schemes of classification doesn't mean they are encyclopedic ones, or even basically sensible ones.  Whether the category (this one right here, not the scheme of them as a whole) serves a useful encyclopedic function is far more important than whether the "collection" of some categorization scheme is complete or not. I would argue that Category:LGBT people by religion exists only as a container for the Christian, Muslim and Judaism subcategories - religions historically very, very "down" on homosexuality in comparison to most others - and someone has mistaken this as a signal to create willy-nilly, inappropriate categories in there for every religion. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may or may not "buy that rationale"; I was simply re-stating what the consensus was at the (very recent) CfD, which you didn't participate in. It may help everyone involved if those who comment review the previous discussion, if they haven't before. You also seem to be making fairly determinative presumptions about the intent of those who created the categories without much (any?) evidence of what they really were. Anyway, it's usually a good practice for nominators to wait a reasonable period of time before renominating a category for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, unusually quick second CfDs should be looked at on their own merits, not rejected out of hand. As for being too "determinative", I call them as I see them. I'm not talking about intent (I'm not psychic), but about actions (creation of categories that don't make sense in an encyclopedic context, and defense of this being primarily under the banner of a categorization scheme that I believe is being misinterpreted overbroadly). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with Good Ol’factory, Keep. Fartbucket (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Trivial intersection, per WP:OVERCAT. No rationale has been provided for how this is in any way different from a Category:Rock stars who play golf or a Category:Heads of state with hearing loss. There is no particular connection between the two topics, and their juxtaposition is not especially notable in any way. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Excuse me, but as far as I'm concerned this whole CFD is out of order. Starting another CFD one week after the previous CFD was closed is nothing less than an abuse of the process. Cgingold (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cgingold. Also, is the fact that there really are homosexual Hindus so troubling to some people that they have to fight like hell to try and act like they don't exist when they actually do exist?  Talk about repression!  This issue is and will become a bigger societal issue as time goes along, it's as important as categories for homosexual Christians, Muslims and Jews.  There are nearly a billion Hindus in the world now.  People can't keep gays in the closet forever, even though that is where some people seem to want them to stay.  It seems people want to target these categories because of the controversial nature of the subject at hand.  I'd like to request more discussion, more mediation, and more people involved in this process.  Fartbucket (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've met gay people from India and they didn't seem particular repressed. On what basis do you say that it's as "important" as the "issue" of homosexual Christians? That there are large numbers of Hindus is irrelevant, absent any clear evidence of serious repression of homosexuals under Hinduism. Maybe its happening, I don't know. All I'm saying is that so far I don't see much justification for such a category.  Category:Taoism exists as a major religion, but we don't have a Category:LGBT Taoists (and don't need one, I should stress). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't we need a category LGBT Taoists, if there were notable LGBT Taoists speaking out about LGBT issues in the Taoist community? Is that not important?  I think it is.  And don't tell me gay people aren't repressed and treated like second (or third) class citizens in India.  What about the Hijra?  I wouldn't say they are always treated too well.  Also, I wouldn't say that gay people are always treated like first class citizens in the USA either. Fartbucket (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 Hare Krishnas
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: Speedy close.  This discussion really belongs at Deletion review given how short the time period was since the last nomination.  It also appears that this may be a WP:POINT or WP:Disruptive editing nomination.  In any case, the reason for the nomination is not valid in and of itself.  In fact a category with one member is valid and can exist.  Size is not in and of itself a reason for deletion.  Finally, it would appear that most of what was contained in these categories has been removed since the two nominated categories now contain a grand total of one article. That would also be an out of process change.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * lgbt hare krishnas


 * Nominator's rationale: Number of articles does not meet category creation merit. Wikidās ॐ 03:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - category will not have a sufficient number of entries to warrant the retention. Its also a POV category that should be avoided. Wikidās ॐ 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - The nominator should withdraw this CFD. If he had checked the edit history first he would have seen that the category was Kept at CFD earlier this month. Cgingold (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - what is the use of keeping this category? It is least populated category by definition, as one of the principles of being Hare Krishna is to refrain from illicit sex. Boy George is not a Hare Krishna, he just sang a Hare Krishna song being influenced by the Hare Krishnas. Wikidās ॐ 03:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you to say who is a Hare Krishna and who is not a Hare Krishna? For example, some Christians claim that gay people can't be Christians because they are gay, but as you can see there are people who claim to be both Christians and homosexuals (see Category:Christian LGBT people.)  Just because someone is not in ISKCON does not mean they are not (or don't consider themselves to be) a Hare Krishna!  Are you the judger of souls?  No, only the infinite and supreme Godhead of the Universe is the judger of souls!  In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna does not specifically condemn homosexuality anymore than any other type of sexuality.  The Bhagavad Gita also suggests that one must act according to true nature.  Homosexuality exists as part of some people's true nature.  And even though it also says that one should strive for spiritual things above sexual things, Krishna himself is depicted as an erotic character who had thousands of Gopi lovers and lots of wives.  Sexuality and Homosexuality exist in nature and it is natural for some.  Gay people are gay because that is the way the Godhead made them.  It does not mean they don't praise Krishna and advocate the mantra.  According to many leaders in ISKCON, anyone who engages in ANY sex that is not for procreation is committing an act of "illicit sex".  So does that mean anyone who engages in sex for pleasure is no longer in your group if they engage in any type of so-called "illicit sex", whether heterosexual or homosexual?  If so, no wonder there aren't many of your type left anymore.  You must expect everyone to be a monk!  That is unrealistic and goes against the nature of the people whom the Godhead created, the same Godhead who created the universe and all the people in it.  Anyhow, ISKCON does not speak for all Hare Krishnas, and neither do they speak for all people who claim to be Hare Krishnas either.  Or, do they?  I doubt it.  Does the Roman Catholic Church speak for all Christians?  No.  And neither does any other specific church.  Boy George sang, "Bow down mister, Hare Rama, Hare Krishna!"  Boy George is gay because that is according to his nature.  He still praises Krishna no matter what you might say. Fartbucket (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: 'Bucket, why on earth are you making wild assumptions about, and discussing in detail, what you suspect Wikidās's views on illicit sex to be?  That has nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Boy George self-identify as a Hare Krishna? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy George's song, "Bow Down Mister" (see video) openly advocates the Hare Krishna mantra as well as Krishna as the Supreme Reality. If that is not an endorsement and an advocation of faith, then what is? Fartbucket (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: Oh, please. By that logic, AC/DC, Mötley Crüe, Van Halen, Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden really are true-believer Satanists. And Love & Rockets are genuine Hindus. And Rush really believe that you can meet the Greek gods in the flesh, and even join their ranks, by going through a black hole. And... —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a bit weak—I was wondering if there was something more solid, like a citable source where he says in an interview he's a Hare Krishna or something like that. I guess not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What about this interview with Boy George which says, "He does stick to his principles - he is still, after his brush with India and Hare Krishna, a vegetarian, and doesn't like alcohol. "I would never use fur in my designs," he says. "Fake fur, definitely. Don't get me wrong, though, I think Pete Burns [whose fur coat was confiscated during Celebrity Big Brother] looks great." A bit equivocal, perhaps, but the spirituality still affects him in real ways.  This article says, "In the next few years George became interested in religion and became a Hare Krishna. He released a dance album called The Martyr Mantras under the name of Jesus Loves You but despite the happy-go-lucky tunes it was ignored on the whole the world over."  This is just what I can find so far, but this is an indication that he is truly influenced spiritually by the movement. Fartbucket (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know what is in someone's heart? He did have an affiliation with the Hare Krishna movement, and it affected him deeply enough (see comments from interviews mentioned above.)  It is not the same as the so called devil worship of the heavy metal bands you mentioned (unless any of them really did worship the devil, but this is obviously a different religion here.)  In the case of Boy George, the Hare Krishna movement affected him to not just make the song "Bow Down Mister", but he also says he became a vegetarian because of it as well.  I would say that this is an indication that he is truly spiritually influenced by the Hare Krishna movement.  Is someone who changes their life to follow Jesus not a Christian?  Is someone who changes their life to follow Krishna not a follower of Krishna?  Some people change their lives in different ways, but I think there is evidence which shows that Boy George was spiritually influenced by the Hare Krishna movement. Fartbucket (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever, it was just a passing question to which I thought there might be a quick yes or no answer. Discussions like this can go to Talk:Boy George, obviously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "How do you know what is in someone's heart?" - that's precisely my point. Cite sources, or there's nothing Wikipedia-relevant to say about the matter. Maybe that one source is actually reliable, I don't know. (Don't care; I'm talking about the principle of the thing, and couldn't care less whether BG really is a HK or not. From a WP:V/WP:RS perspective I'd rather see an actual quotation from him, since a pop music journalist can make the same assumption error as a WP editor - that BG is a HK simply because he sang as HK-inspired song. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I mentioned in closing the recent discussion, it can be deleted if it stays empty for 4 days. The nominator just emptied it at 03:26 22 AUG, so if it's still empty after 03:26 26 AUG it could be deleted, but I don't see much point in going through the CfD again so soon after the last one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fartbucket (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Trivial intersection, per WP:OVERCAT. Also, it seems clear that someone just went along creating "LGBT 'X'" categories where "X" is every religion they could think of, and then put Boy George in this one to keep it from speedy deletion as empty, despite no reliable sources for BG being a HK. Having sung a song about something doesn't make one a true believer. Show me an interview where BG says he is an HK. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 05:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what has happened here. With respect, it would really help if people examined the recent CfD. In that one, there was a discussion about Kirtanananda Swami and whether he was properly in the category. The discussion about the specifics of this person was taken elsewhere, but I made it clear in closing it that if he was removed by consensus and the category remained empty for 4 days, then of course it could be speedily deleted. So why are we discussing this again? Why not just see if it remains empty now that BG is removed? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: I beg to differ; the existence (see immediately above this CfD) of a near-empty Category:LGBT Hindus is strong evidence that this is precisely what is happening. Someone is trying to flesh out the parent cat. with new subcats, just for the heck of it, without considering whether an LGBT Hindu and an LGBT Muslim are comparable, culturally, and whether the former passes WP:OVERCAT (while the latter almost certainly does). As for why CfD it again, instead of just wait for SD: Because CfD sets a precedent that can be referred back to next time someone re-creates this category, or creates Category:LGBT Taoists or whatever, which seems inevitable. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to assume good faith on the intention of other editors. There's no evidence that would necessitate your interpretation. In fact, when they were first created, the Hare Krishna category was a subcategory of the Hindus category, with nothing else in the Hindus category. It was a logical parent–daughter category relationship, probably created (from an AGF view) by the author because Category:Hare Krishnas is a subcategory of Category:Hindus. As for repeating the CfD, see the Cgingold's comments. Some editors clearly view this as an abuse of process, and they have a good argument, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm observing what appear to be signs of poor consideration of the nature of the categories. I generally don't ABF about anyone other than the kind of obvious vandals who change a bio article subject's middle name to BUTTHEAD and the like. I don't think the position of the HK subcat inside the H subcat affects my analysis much - the gist is that someone thinks that all LGBT people need to be categorized by religion, and this is a classic trivial intersection per WP:OVERCAT with the only exceptions being cases where this intersection would seem to be dogmatically very problematic or culturally highly improbable. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Excuse me, but as far as I'm concerned this whole CFD is out of order. Starting another CFD one week after the previous CFD was closed is nothing less than an abuse of the process. Cgingold (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment: Those are rather strong words, and sound like an assumption of bad faith (though someone just said I sounded like that too, above, so WP:KETTLE, I guess). While a gap between CfDs this short is unusual, I see the nominator raising what he/she believes to be an issue that was not considered the first time.  I don't personally feel strongly that it is a major issue to raise, but I'm also not the nominator and not privy to that person's thoughts and rationale that lead them to such a conclusion. I'm actually glad it was re-addressed (quickly or otherwise), since I don't think the OVERCAT issues were discussed enough the first time around, nor that the qualitative difference between the Hindu and Hare Krishna LGBT categories vs. the Christian, Jew and Moslem ones had been examined well initially. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it OVERCAT, and how is the categorization of Homosexuals of Faith (and different faiths) a type of OVERCAT? Is that because you think the religion of homosexuals is trivial and not important?  Do you think it is just as (or less) important than Rock stars who play golf?!  There are almost a billion Hindus in the world now.  There are millions of homosexuals in the world (and there always has been.)  Some Hindus are homosexuals (and always have been.)  It's not easy for people to speak about such things, because in many places these things are still considered "taboo".  Such was the case with homosexuals here in the Western World not that long ago (and in some cases still here even to this day.)  Homosexuals are still a much hated, misunderstood, and mistreated minority group.  This is not unnecessary info, is it not?  This would be of interest to anyone studying the intersection of faith and homosexuality in human culture and society.  This will continue to be an important and controversial topic for all those interested in LGBT studies.  I'm sorry to argue. Thank you all for your thoughts and discussion.  Hare Rama, Hare Krishna! Fartbucket (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.