Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 27



Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters

 * 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Alternate versions of fictional characters to Category:Alternate versions of comics characters

This is a comics-related category.

I had considered following the typical convention of Fictional characters in comics, but the use of "in comics" in this case would seem potentially confusing. - jc37 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename - as nominator. - jc37 22:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were articles for characters from other media, I'd argue that the name is fine as is. As it stands, this is collecting almost exclusively comics characters, renaming makes sense. And I agree, using "in comics" would lean to including articles about comics adaptations of characters from other media. - J Greb (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per them two above. Hiding T 09:11, 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.

Category:Fictional sea creatures

 * 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 (might I suggest that someone just change the hatnote to read "A category for creatures in fiction who live in water"?) . Kbdank71 16:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional sea creatures to Category:Fictional aquatic creatures
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some of the current members of the category and its sub-cats are lake dwellers. I see no need for a specific category for fictional creatures who live in salt water (which is currently stated on the page as defining the category). There are no other sub-cats of fictional characters by habitat. However, being an aquatic creature is a defining characteristic. Fayenatic (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. One of the reasons I like this idea is because it can serve as a parent cat for, which doesn't really fit under "sea creatures". And let's not forget Gill-man! Cgingold (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename -As Cgingold said, the renaming could lead to other cats. Do it for Gill-man! Leonard(Bloom) 00:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - We're going to end up with characters with water-based abilities in the cat, due to the potential confusion of "aquatic". I checked out Sea creatures and it redirects to Marine biology. Which is comparable to Freshwater biology. So instead, why not just create Category:Fictional freshwater creatures, and move the improperly categorised pages there.? - jc37 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting suggestion -- but Gill-man (among others) would be left out of that scheme, because the Black Lagoon is surely brackish water, which is specifically excluded from the realm of freshwater. I'm far less concerned about characters with "water-based abilities" finding their way into Category:Fictional aquatic creatures -- certainly they should be excluded in the headnote. Cgingold (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another objection to a separate freshwater category is that Fictional lobsters and crayfish would have to be split in two, and others categories would either half-inaccurately go in both, or likewise be split in two (Fictional mermen and mermaids, Fictional fish, Fictional otters). It's probably helpful to access all fictional fish (etc) together, not split between sea and freshwater. As stated above, there are no other categories by habitat, and I don't see that it would be helpful. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just notice that the parent cat is, so that would be more consistent as well. Cgingold (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also see Category:Freshwater crustaceans and Category:Marine reptiles, and even Category:Seaweeds. So the arguments above apparently just don't hold water. (Sorry about the pun, I just had to : ) - jc37 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you advise that the present all-water sub-categories e.g. Category:Fictional fish should be split into category:Fictional freshwater fish and Category:Fictional seawater fish, or placed half-inaccurately as sub-cats of both sea creatures and freshwater creatures? If we split them, presumably the present categories e.g. category:Fictional fish could be kept as parent categories, and go up to category:Fictional animals rather than an aquatic head category. Maybe different solutions are needed for different subcats; category:Fictional otters contains at least one article which covers both sea and freshwater otters. I haven't checked whether all the merpeople category are sea merpeople; they might be -- the lake merpeople in Harry Potter don't have an article. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And what do you do if the fictional fish in question don't specify marine or freshwater? These are all just great examples of why, when dealing with fiction, often lists are better : ) - jc37 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the freshwater/marine distinction is not particularly significant in fiction, whereas the aquatic/non-aquatic distinction undoubtedly is. Moreover, since most of the subcats of this category contain fewer than 10 articles, I don't think we should further subdivide between "marine creatures" and "freshwater creatures". However, I think jc37 is correct that renaming to Fictional aquatic creatures may cause characters with water-based abilities to be placed in the category, so I can at most weakly support renaming (added later: I suppose "undecided" is the most accurate description). Listifying might be a good solution, but it would need to be discussed in the context of a group nomination. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think "Sea creature" is distinct from "lake monster" (just to use two examples). - jc37 13:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. The setting of "a coastal town under siege by a creature from the salty ocean depths" is rather different from "a peaceful village in the mountains - until someone flushed their croc down the drain and it wound up in the lake". Aaaaand ... I'm back to neutral. :) –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:00, 3 September 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.

Virginia families

 * 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Byrd family to Category:Byrd family of Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:Carter family to Category:Carter family of Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:Fitzhugh family to Category:Fitzhugh family of Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:Harrison family to Category:Harrison family of Virginia
 * Propose renaming Category:Randolph family to Category:Randolph family of Virginia
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are other notable families with each of these names. The change disambiguates them. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: Do the other notable families by the same name have coverage on Wikipedia? It seems the family articles do not follow the "...of Virginia" custom and those moves could have been made without a debate.  In other words, are you suggesting a preemptive disambiguation? -MrFizyx (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is pre-emptive on my part, a chance perhaps to fix a problem before it becomes a problem. There is certainly coverage of at least two other Carter families, although one is covered in Category:Jimmy Carter and another in the article Carter Family. If there is support for a rename I'll go through and move the main articles to match. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support renaming: I thought we had a guideline that frowned on this sort of thing (pre-emptive disambiguation), but I can't find it anywhere. Perhaps consensus shifted while I wasn't looking.  I don't see a problem with it so long as the current pages have an appropriate redirect or disambiguation. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support renaming Not doing some preemptive renaming is lik not distinguishing the people with a last name with a first name until someone else of the same last name appears. If we have such a policy, it needs some adjustment to stability and reality. In this case, it is not the various possible Byrd etc . families in various places that are being discussed, but a particular noteworthy group of people in a particular place. DGG (talk) 06:51, 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.

Category:Sport utility wagons

 * 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 both, noting that both AfDs ended in "delete". –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * sport utility wagons


 * sport utility convertibles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as original research. This is a follow up to the AfDs on the corresponding articles, see: Sport utility wagon and Sport utility convertible.  swa  q  16:12, 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:LGBT former Hare Krishnas

 * 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. This category is an intersection of Category:LGBT people and Category:Former Hare Krishnas, which does not exist at this time. To quote WP:OC:


 * "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article. ... In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories."


 * The sole article in this category is already in the LGBT people category tree via Category:Bisexual musicians, Category:LGBT people from England, and Category:LGBT musicians from the United Kingdom. It may be worth considering creating a category for former Hare Krishnas (see Category:People by former religion), but the need for that category (see Categorization of people) would have to be evaluated further. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:LGBT former Hare Krishnas to Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Do we really need a category for every type of person that could be in the main category? Clearly these single person categories are OCAT with a touch of POV pushing. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas has one member the two subcategories (Category:Former LGBT Hare Krishnas and Category:LGBT former Hare Krishnas) have one member each. The small numbers make me wonder why the categories are needed at all.  On the other hand when I google ISKCON and homosexuality, there is quite a lot to read.  At the very least the subcategories should be merged/deleted since we have no categories for "former Hare Krishnas" nor "former LGBTs".  If the categories are unlikely to be populated, perhaps we should delete all of them. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this category should be kept the way it is. The reason is because there is a distinction between LGBT Hare Krishnas, LGBT people who used to be Hare Krishnas, and Hare Krishnas who used to consider themselves LGBT.  I was originally fine for including them all in the LGBT Hare Krishnas category, but because of vicious disagreements (see Talk:Boy George, and Talk:Kirtanananda Swami) as to who was openly gay when, and who currently considers themselves to be a Hare Krishna, that is why I am going for the specifics here.  Anyway, I think the specifics are better too, because there are distinctions and these distinctions are important.  And as far as the person who said, "we have no categories for "former Hare Krishnas" nor "former LGBTs", well, that's not really true either.  There is a category called Category:Ex-gay people, and there's also a category called Category:Former ISKCON religious figures.  There are (and were) some prominent LGBT people who were involved in the Hare Krishna movement, and I think this information would be of note to anyone interested in LGBT studies, particularly with interest in the intersection of homosexuality and religion. Fartbucket (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest Boy George is a "former ISKCON religious figure"? -MrFizyx (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but what I am saying is that Boy George was involved with the Hare Krishna movement and he is openly LGBT, and this is cited in his article and discussed on his discussion page. Fartbucket (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds all very well for the "Boy George" article, but there is nothing to indicate that "LGBT former Hare Kishnas" are a notable group. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it not notable when people used to be involved in a religious or spiritual movement (in this case, the Hare Krishna movement), but then couldn't take part because they were LGBT and had to distance themselves from it? I bet there are others this is true for and not just Boy George.  I think these things would be of interest to people in LGBT studies, sociology, and religion, and how these things relate to each other. Fartbucket (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you and I think is important, interesting, or worthwhile. What matters (for the encyclopedia) is what you can find reliable sources for.  If there's a historian or sociologist that studies LGBT people who used to be Hare Krishnas, perhaps we can use the category.  If not, it's POV and OR to put them in such a cat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But there ARE reliable sources cited in those articles (or did you read them?) Fartbucket (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm - see below? Don't we have two different discussions going on for the same thing? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its awful confusing. This cat is for Hare Krishna --> LGBT, the category below is for LGBT --> Hare Krishna. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. No matter how you cut it, 'LGBT former Hare Krishnas' and 'Former LGBT Hare Krishnas' is going to be completely confusing for most readers.  The different word order and the resulting nuance will be missed by most. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How would it be too confusing if people would just read what it says? If that's not enough, they could click on the category and read the explanations.

LGBT people who used to be involved with the Hare Krishna movement = LGBT former Hare Krishnas.

People who used to identify as LGBT, but no longer identify as LGBT because of their involvement with the Hare Krishna movement = Former LGBT Hare Krishnas.

I think these distinctions are important. Fartbucket (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation not how English speakers would read or use that phrase. "LGBT" and "former" are both adjectives.  Regardless of word order most people will undersand that they both modify the noun, "Hare Krishnas".  If you google "Former LGBT" the first hit is the category that you made up (a likely indicator of original research).  For the rest of the hits the word "former" is used to modify a noun that comes after the LGBT acronym. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, do you speak English? You started your first sentence with "Your interpretation not how English speakers would read.."  Anyway, "Former Chinese" is acceptable English, so why not "Former Homosexual"?  Google both and you get results.  "Former Chinese national team star has US playing for gold medal", "Former Chinese leader dies at 87".  Or, "Former Homosexual Says 'No one is born gay'", "Gay Conversion Not Biblical, Says Former Homosexual".  All of your talk about web hits and scrutinizing my English sounds more like original research on your part. Fartbucket (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Former Homosexual" only works when homosexual is clearly a noun and not an adjective as in your examples where homosexual is the object of a sentence. In "Former Chinese leader" both "former" and "Chinese" modify "leader", and one would never interpret this as a leader who is formerly Chinese.  In your other example "former" modifies the noun "star", this is a "former star of the Chinese national team", not "a national team star who is formerly Chinese."  Your examples only emphasize my point.  You shouldn't get too upset about this though.  English is the only language I speak well, and as you've noted I still screw that up. -MrFizyx (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "Former Black leader", or "Former Black Presidents"? As for "LGBT former Hare Krishnas", it's just a shortened version of "LGBT people formerly involved with the Hare Krishna movement".  I guess the latter might be a better name if we want to get technical...  So, all right.  We could change "LGBT former Hare Krishnas" to "LGBT people formerly involved with the Hare Krishna movement". Fartbucket (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it now! Now I understand why some people were having trouble understanding what I meant.  We can change "LGBT former Hare Krishnas" to "LGBT people formerly involved with the Hare Krishna movement".  And we can change "Former LGBT Hare Krishnas" to "Hare Krishnas who formerly identified as LGBT".  Sorry for the added confusion.  Fartbucket (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename - I propose that this category be renamed Category:LGBT people formerly involved with the Hare Krishna movement. Fartbucket (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sure is a mouthful, but at least it's not ambiguous. Still other concerns have been discussed in this debate. -MrFizyx (talk) 18:46, 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:Former LGBT Hare Krishnas

 * 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. This category is an intersection of Category:Ex-gay people and Category:Hare Krishnas. To quote WP:OC:


 * "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article. ... In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories."


 * The sole article in this category is already in the Hare Krishnas category tree via Category:American Hare Krishnas. It may or may not (see Categorization of people) be appropriate to also place the article into Category:Ex-gay people, but that is a content and sourcing issue best resolved on the talk page of the article, rather than here at CFD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * former lgbt hare krishnas


 * Nominator's rationale: Quite obviously a fork created for one article. See the Talk:Kirtanananda Swami. Besides that, it fails WP:BLP by labeling a living person something they do not want to be labeled and/or have denied. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This category is too confusing too be useful. Is it for LGBT people who are former Hare Krishnas, Hare Krishnas who are formerly LGBT, or people who are formerly both? It's contentious in any case. Plus, it only has one entry.  Jim Miller  See me 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:LGBT Hare Krishnas. This is the third discussion on this category tree in recent days.  There is simply no justification to split out the contents of the parent category.  Vegaswikian (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. To my knowledge we don't have any categories for "fromer homosexuals" if such a thing should exist (not something I encourage) this is not the way for it to start.  The editors of the page in question can decide whether or not the individual belongs in the parent category.  I gather the implication is that the person was not LGBT and Hare Krishna at the same time. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is a category called Category:Ex-gay people, and in many ways I think this applies in the case of Kirtanananda Swami, but in this case specifically due to his association with the Hare Krishna movement and the fact that openly practicing homosexuality is not tolerated in that movement. So, this caused many people who were openly gay to either take a vow of celibacy and/or no longer identify as LGBT once they became involved with the Hare Krishna movement.  I think this distinction is important to note.  For example, there are (and were) some prominent LGBT people who were involved in the Hare Krishna movement, and I think this information would be of note to anyone interested in LGBT studies, particularly with interest in the intersection of homosexuality and religion.  As for the person who commented "This category is too confusing too be useful. Is it for LGBT people who are former Hare Krishnas, Hare Krishnas who are formerly LGBT, or people who are formerly both?"  For anyone who wants to KNOW what this category means, all they have to do is go to the category and READ what it means:  "This category includes Hare Krishnas who once identified as LGBT, but who later took a vow of celibacy and/or no longer identify themselves as LGBT."  It's as simple as that.  To the person who commented, "Besides that, it fails WP:BLP by labeling a living person something they do not want to be labeled and/or have denied."  That's not true either, Kirtanananda Swami openly admitted his homosexuality in a court of law, and this is referenced in the article.  He later claimed to be celibate, and you can read more about that on his page (and on the talk page.)  Anyway, that category clearly says that it only includes those who have admitted to being openly gay at one time but no longer consider themselves so because of their religious vows (due to their involvement in the Hare Krishna movement.)  It's similar to the category Category:Ex-gay people, but with specific reference to the Hare Krishna movement.  To me, this would be of interest to anyone studying the intersection of religion and homosexuality, specifically in the case of the Hare Krishna movement. Fartbucket (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have sources and can make a case that he belongs in Category:Ex-gay people, then go ahead an put him there, but you are going to have to find a lot more articles to convince me that this needs its own category. And the name really should be more clear, "Ex-gay Hare Krishnas" or "formerly LGBT Hare Krishnas" or "former LGBT identifying Hare Krishnas" would all be less confusing.  I'm still not convinced that you have the articles to populate such a category though. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the category's name could be made more clear, I don't disagree with you there. As far as how many articles need to be in a category for it to be kept, it's already been said on previous discussions here that the number of articles in a category alone does not determine whether or not a category should be deleted or not.  As Vegaswikian has said, "In fact a category with one member is valid and can exist. Size is not in and of itself a reason for deletion." Fartbucket (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the size may be symptom of other problems, such as a non-notable or narrow intersection, or that undue weight is being given to something. Regardless, it is hard to make a case that a category of one or very few persons is going to be of academic interest to someone as you sugget below. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a *huge* difference between "ex-gay" and "former LGBT". The Ex-gay movement is a recognized, notable organization.  "Former LGBT" is totally WP:OR - it's labeling someone as "they used to be LGBT" when that person no longer identifies as such.  That is not only WP:OR, but it totally violates WP:BLP.  If a person no longer identifies as LGBT, we are (by policy, not guideline) not allowed to label them as such. See Little Richard and Matt Sanchez for two examples - the latter actually devolved to ArbCom sanctions against editors that kept labeling him as LGBT.  This category violates tons of policy and guidelines and should be deleted and salted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that ex-gay is a Christian organization, and that is why I think there should be a category for "ex-gay" Hare Krishnas called Category:Former LGBT Hare Krishnas. As far as the other things you stated, they do not apply in the case of Kirtanananda Swami, because he admitted the he used to be gay in a court of law.  See his article and the source from the documentary Holy Cow Swami.  In a court of law in 1991, they asked the Swami, and I quote:  "Back in the 1950s and early 60s, were you homosexual?"  Kirtanananda replies, 'Yes.'"


 * If that's not labeling himself as former LGBT, then I don't know what is!


 * Full reference:
 * 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."  He then goes on to say that he was celibate after becoming Swami, but was later caught being "intimate" with a boy during the "Winnebago Incident" of 1993, and on September 10, 2000, ISKCON released their Official Decision on the Case of Kirtanananda Das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection, and determined that Kirtanananda had molested two boys.
 * Fartbucket (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - small category with no apparent growth potential. Also POV-pushing in its premise that a vow of celibacy removes sexual orientation. Sexual activity does not equal sexual orientation and lack of sexual activity does not equal lack of sexual orientation. As stated above, if the subject according to reliable sources considers himself an "ex-gay" then add it to the article and add him to the category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that "a vow of celibacy removes sexual orientation", and nor does the category suggest that either! This has to do with self-identifying as LGBT or not as well as being a Hare Krishna.  The category is for people who used to identify as LGBT, but then no longer identified as LGBT because of their involvement in the Hare Krishna movement.  I think this is worth noting, and would be of interest to LGBT studies at the intersection of homosexuality and religion.  As far as how many articles need to be in a category for it to be kept, it's already been said on previous discussions here that the number of articles in a category alone does not determine whether or not a category should be deleted or not.  As Vegaswikian has said, "In fact a category with one member is valid and can exist. Size is not in and of itself a reason for deletion."  Fartbucket (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a category of one may be appropriate, if the single-entry category is part of a large and well-accepted categorization structure. This one isn't. And the category most certainly does suggest that a vow of celibacy removes sexual orientation! Read the category description: "This category includes Hare Krishnas who once identified as LGBT, but who later took a vow of celibacy and/or no longer identify themselves as LGBT." (emphasis added). So again, find a reliable source that says he no longer identifies as gay and put it in the article and the ex-gays category. If no such reliable source exists, then the category is unsupportable as original research. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Otto, maybe you should read it again. It says, "This category includes Hare Krishnas who once identified as LGBT, but who later took a vow of celibacy AND/OR no longer identify themselves as LGBT." (emphasis added).  That AND/OR is important here.  Did you not see the part which says, "and/or no longer identify themselves as LGBT."?  That doesn't mean they don't ever have sexual thoughts (either gay or straight), and it also doesn't mean they never have heterosexual sex either.  It specifically is talking about what the individual IDENTIFIES THEMSELVES as.  Heck, it could even mean that they still have gay sex, for all we know, it just is talking about what someone considers themselves after being influenced by the Hare Krishna movement (a movement that encourages gays to be celibate, and straights to only have sex for making babies.)  I think these distinctions are important.  As was stated before in this discussion, "ex-gay" is a Christian organization, and that is why I think there should be a category for "ex-gay" Hare Krishnas called Category:Former LGBT Hare Krishnas.  Oh, and there is a source in which Kirtanananda said that he used to be homosexual in the 1950s and early 1960s, but then no longer considered himself to be homosexual after he became a Hare Krishna.  If you read a little bit further in this discussion, you will see that these references have already been mentioned (as they are already mentioned in his article.)  Fartbucket (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So we could just make a category named Category:Hare Krishnas who once identified as LGBT, but who later took a vow of celibacy AND/OR no longer identify themselves as LGBT. And nobody would be confused.  Except that nobody would find a category so far removed from the general structure of Wikipedia categories and that being a group definition that you've made up it would be original research. -MrFizyx (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be original research, if it wasn't so widely known about and reported about regarding the Hare Krishna movement and ISKCON's general views on homosexuality. Here's just one link for you.  There are plenty others.  Basically, they think gays should not be practicing gays (preferably celibate), and that straight people should only have sex to make children.  Sexual pleasure is not considered a "good" thing, really.  So, you have some people join the group, and a number of people who are raised in the group to think that homosexuality (and, in general, all sexuality for pleasure that doesn't lead to children) is wrong, and so some attempt to become celibate monks in order to try and control their natural sexual urges.  But of course, people are people, and sometimes scandals break out because a guru or a monk can't keep up with the celibacy (this has happened in the Catholic Church too.)  People are naturally sexual, and when they can't be, then sometimes this frustration builds up until something happens.  There have been numerous documented sex scandals in the Hare Krishna movement.  Last I heard, ISKCON still owes lots of money for the abuse cases too.  Anyhow, there are a number of "previously gay" people in the movement who no longer identify themselves as gay because, well, they really can't identify as such and openly practice their homosexuality and still be welcome in the ISKCON group (yet, that is.)  Nevertheless, ISKCON doesn't really speak for everyone who praises Krishna!  Anyway, the first category name I chose was more concise than the comically extra-long category name you proposed, and these things should make sense if people actually read the descriptions.  As I stated before:


 * How would it be too confusing if people would just read what it says? If that's not enough, they could click on the category and read the explanations.


 * LGBT people who used to be involved with the Hare Krishna movement = LGBT former Hare Krishnas.


 * People who used to identify as LGBT, but no longer identify as LGBT because of their involvement with the Hare Krishna movement = Former LGBT Hare Krishnas.


 * I think these distinctions are important.
 * Fartbucket (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename - I propose that this category be renamed Category:Hare Krishnas who formerly identified as LGBT. Fartbucket (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - violates policy (WP:BLP) as well as being WP:OR. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this does not violate those policies because the Swami admitted that he had been a homosexual in a court of law.


 * Read his article and the source from the documentary Holy Cow Swami, during his court case in 1991, they asked the Swami, and I quote: "Back in the 1950s and early 60s, were you homosexual?"  Kirtanananda replies, 'Yes.'"


 * If that's not labeling himself as former LGBT, then I don't know what is!


 * Full reference:
 * 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."  He then goes on to say that he was celibate after becoming Swami, but was later caught being "intimate" with a boy during the "Winnebago Incident" of 1993, and on September 10, 2000, ISKCON released their Official Decision on the Case of Kirtanananda Das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection, and determined that Kirtanananda had molested two boys.
 * Fartbucket (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of the discussion *here* is not about the particular individual or article. The point here is that this category violates BLP.  If a person says they are gay, and then changes their statement and identifies as straight, celibate, or whatever, we are not allowed to put them in any category they might deem "defaming" or "controversial."  I invite you to see Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 10.  I also invite you to read through the lengthy discussion of the ArbCom case: Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, much of which centers on this exact issue - someone who stated on a TV show that they were gay, but later retracted the statement.  The ruling of the ArbCom case was specifically that Wikipedia is not about labeling someone in a way that they do not label themselves. Labeling someone "formerly LGBT" is pure WP:OR and fully violates BLP. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference in this case is that Kirtanananda admitted that he WAS homosexual at one point in his life and then no longer considered himself as such after he became a Hare Krishna. The case that you cited is not the same, because in Kirtanananda's case there has not been any RETRACTION of the previous statements made by him!  He has NEVER stated otherwise or that he was never LGBT!  From his own statements, he said that he had been a homosexual at one time, and I provided a reference (and it's referenced in his article, in the documentary film Holy Cow Swami, and in some books about him and New Vrindaban, like Monkey On A Stick.)  He has never denied that he used to be openly homosexual when he was living in Greenwich Village in New York City in the 1950s and early 1960s.  I am not the one just labeling him here, he labeled HIMSELF as such at one point in his life and there is evidence which backs this up.  Also, he has not retracted those previously mentioned statements either.  This is not the same as the previous case that you cited, and so your comments don't really apply in this case. Fartbucket (talk) 05:00, 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.

Category:Cold Y Generation

 * 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * cold y generation


 * Nominator's rationale: just a list of people born in a particular year range. HEY YOU! YES YOU! I AM TALKING TO YOU! THIS IS ME! A plague of rainbows 13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - In looking through Category:American generations and Category:Cultural generations, I don't see anything like this. Further, people of these generations seem to be categorised under " births". (Category:1990s births, for example.) - jc37 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even i fthis is a real generation, which I have some doubts about, it is, as jc37 says, not the way we do it. DGG (talk) 07:12, 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.

Category:Upcoming television series

 * 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, do not rename. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The current title, and accompanying category page text, is awfully arbitrary and confusing. To a British English speaker, "series" would mean "season", and yet the accompanying page text explicitly says the category is NOT for upcoming season information. This is counter-intuitive. I would suggest that the category be moved to Category:Upcoming television programs, with a redirect added for the British spelling (Category:Upcoming television programmes). "Program/Programme" is the closest thing to a universal English term for the subject.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "series" is in widespread usage throughout the English Wikipedia. See Category:Television series and its many subcategories. This category should not be renamed in isolation. Otto4711 (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - TV series is the agreed upon disambiguation phrase on Wikipedia, for just these reasons. - jc37 01:19, 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.

Category:Upcoming television shows

 * 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:Upcoming television series. Kbdank71 16:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of "show" here is awfully vague. The explanatory text doesn't make things any clearer, as it seems to conflate "episode" with "program". Would suggest move to something like Category:Upcoming television productions, and a changing of the explanatory text to indicate the category is for any type of television production except for programs/programmes. Thus, it could house articles for yet-to-air seasons, episodes and one-off events.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be serving the same function as the category nominated above, with a few season articles thrown in for good measure. Recategorize the series and delete the category. Otto4711 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate to Category:Upcoming television series, then Delete - per Otto4711. - jc37 01:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate to Category:Upcoming television series, then delete per jc37 and Otto. However, doing so will require a change to the workings of Future television beyond just a simple category removal or replacement. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good catch. If kept, tt looks like the more appropriate thing would be to suggest that this be renamed to Category:Upcoming television programs (per WP:NC-TV). And noting clearly in the introduction that this is specifically not for series. (As noted in the template explanation.) - jc37 19:09, 2 September 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.