Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 15#Category:Alleged cults

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 16:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Architectural glossary to :Category:Architecture terms

• Rename. This category is no for articles that are or are about glossaries, rather it is called a glossary because the category itself contains architecture terms. This isn't how we name categories, and it should be renamed to "architecture terms" per common convention. See the many subcategories already at :Category:Terminology. Dmcdevit·t 22:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Concur. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remark see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture/Categories#Architectural_glossary. It's not clear why this category exists at all. Maybe it should be deleted. Some of the more egregious articles have been removed which were included in it when the linked discussion took place; however the subcategories included still seem random. For comparison, there is a :Category:Musical terminology. jnestorius^(talk) 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Rfrisbie^talk 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete altogether per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete altogether per above and talk:WikiProject Architecture —dogears (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename per nom. (I prefer "terms" over "terminology", for this usage.) - By the way, there is a difference between a glossary and a dictionary... - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per discussion at WP:ARCH. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep --Kbdank71 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Glossaries to :Category:Wikipedia glossaries :Category:Glossary articles

• Rename. Right now, this category contains mostly Wikipedia articles that are glossaries, like Glossary of American football but, as well, articles about glossaries, like Atlas of the Supernatural and The Abrogans. This makes the categorization useless for the articles about glossaries. I propose that this category be renamed to "Wikipedia glossaries" (unless there's a better name) for the articles that are glossaries, and then I'll migrate the handful of articles about glossaries back to :Category:Glossaries. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• How about :Category:Glossary articles and :Category:Individual glossaries (as proposed for gemstones below)? >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name seems self-explanatory to me. Article space glossaries should not be in a self-reference category. The only "Wikipedia glossary" I know of is Wikipedia:Glossary. That's in :Category:Wikipedia FAQ and :Category:Wikipedia help. List of glossaries is neither a "glossary article" nor "individual glossary." Feel free to creat a new category for "articles about glossaries" and move those. Rfrisbie^talk 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as violation of WP:SELF. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for WP:SELF. But shouldn't most of those glossaries be deleted for violating WP:NOT? Resident Evil glossary? Seriously? Doczilla 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• It isn't my intention to create a sel-reference, I was just struggling to come up with a better name. The point is to differentiate two very different meanings, so tha the category actually has a meaning. Otherwise it's broken. I can't navigate using the glossary category from Atlas of the Supernatural. Please reconsider with one of Radiant's better suggestions. Dmcdevit·t 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Create the new category, :Category:Glossary articles for articles like Atlas of the Supernatural and The Abrogans. Then recat what goes there and drop this nomination to rename a perfectly good category for the actual glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 03:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• That doesn't help. The point I'm getting at is that glossaries's articles should be at :Category:Glossaries, just like atlases are at :Category:Atlases and encyclopedias are at :Category:Encyclopedias. Articles that are glossaries shouldn't be, but those are nearly all of the hundreds of articles already there. This is the category that should be renamed. Is :Category:Articles that are glossaries clearer? Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree and still oppose. Look at Wikipedia:Contents. :Category:Glossaries, :Category:Lists, :Category:Portals, :Category:Chronology, and :Category:Graphical timelines are parallel constructions. :Category:Glossaries is part of a high-level set of pages about "Wikipedia's contents." It should be left as is. Rfrisbie^talk 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC) :Category:Glossary articles should be a subcategory of :Category:Glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Um. Glossaries would likely be categorized as reference works and lexicography. They have nothing to do with Wikipedia articles that are designed as glossaries. That makes no sense. Dmcdevit·t 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• So, we disagree. It's time for someone else to decide. Rfrisbie^talk 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure I understand the structure and evolution of Categories well enough, or the intricacies of the subject itself, but I'm confused by the overlap of :Category:Lexicography, :Category:Terminology, and :Category:Glossaries. Perhaps merging something with something in those 3 would help?
  The only other suggestion I have is to create a new :Category:Topical glossaries for those listed at List of glossaries, but that doesnt help the overlap problem. --Quiddity 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• That's like saying we need :Category:Topical lists, etc. Glossaries are inherently "topical." Rfrisbie^talk 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Leave this category the way it is, and create a new one called "About glossaries". I believe this is the most efficient way to present Wikipedia's glossaries as well as articles about glossaries. Mixing the two detracts from both (when you want lists of definitions, the last thing you want is an article on a book; and if you are looking for book descriptions, it would be a pain to click on all of Wikipedia's glossaries to find them. --The Transhumanist 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Rename, and Keep - I think "Glossaries" is the better name. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• For which class of article? You don't appear to have clearly understood the problem. Uncle G 10:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's clear that there are two different things covered by this category: articles that are themselves glossaries and articles that are about published reference works that are glossaries. It is also clear that this mixture applies to the parents of this category. It is listed on Wikipedia:Contents alongside :Category:Lists et al., in its rôle as a category of articles that are themselves glossaries; but it is also a sub-category of :Category:Reference works, in its rôle as a category of articles that are about published reference works that are glossaries. Clearly the two need to be separate. The decision is which gets to keep the name :Category:Glossaries.

  Letting the category for the articles that are themselves glossaries keep the name has the advantage of there being less work to do, since that is the category of most of the articles currently in the category. It also has the advantage of keeping all of the category names at Wikipedia:Contents short.

  Letting the category for the articles about published reference works that are glossaries keep the name has the advantage of consistency with :Category:Atlases, :Category:Almanacs, and the various other sub-categories of :Category:Reference works.

  Both choices have reasons for having the name "Glossaries" based upon self-consistency with other, parallel categories listed by a parent. Either way, the solution for the category that doesn't get to keep the name is inferior.

  In the end, my choice came down to the actual article subjects themselves. Atlas of the Supernatural isn't really a glossary. (It isn't an atlas, either.) And Theosophical Glossary is a highly problematic article in its own right. That leaves Federal Standard 1037C, Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy, and Abrogans as the three articles about published glossaries. Therefore my opinion is to keep the articles that are themselves glossaries in :Category:Glossaries, and move the articles about published reference works that are glossaries to another category, such as :Category:Published glossaries for example, which becomes the new sub-category of :Category:Reference works. I have no objections to a better name. And I have no major objections to splitting the category the other way, letting the other class of articles keep the category name. But the category should be split. Uncle G 10:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Uncle G: Leave this category the way it is, and create a new one called "Published glossaries". John Broughton | Talk 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I support this solution. Dmcdevit·t 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I support this solution. Well summarized Uncle G, thanks :) --Quiddity 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've created the new category, and moved the 3 articles mentioned into it. --Quiddity 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• I also support his solution. - jc37 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Make it so. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. David Kernow (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Livingston dynasty in New York to :Category:Livingston family

• Rename, in line with the other items in :Category:Political families of the United States. Landolitan 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. "Dynasty" implies different things to different people, and anyway not all the members were prominent politicians. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom as I did not turn up any other notable Livingston families in a web search.-choster 18:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Chief executive officers into :Category:Chief executives

• Merge, into the much larger :Category:Chief executives. It is possible to argue that there is a difference, and that chief executive officers are specific to companies/corporations (that position is hinted at by the inclusion of this category in :Category:Corporate executives, but I don't think that distinction is generally understood or agree upon. Certainly up to this point :Category:Chief executives has been a more popular choice for corporate CEOs with users. The merge category should be retained as a redirect as it will be a prime candidate for inadvertent recreation if it is simply deleted. Greg Grahame 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is a difference between a COO and a CEO, though both are chief executives. I also think that this category needs to be pared. There is a difference between the chief exectutive of a nation, and the chief executive of a corporation. I am rather leaning towards delete. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. In everyday English chief executive refers to a business role. The other uses are obscure and incorporating them into the category system will only confuse matters. Piccadilly 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We've deleted several suburbs categories in the past, so I guess these need to go, too. Delete and do not merge, because the articles are already in other subcategories of :Category:Greater Cleveland. - EurekaLott 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• As long as :Category:Suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio is being deleted too, I'm okay with a Delete for this category. - DangApricot 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom; whether or not a community is a suburb is a matter of opinion, so it is better to base categorization on Census/state/COG-defined metropolitan areas.-choster 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|New York School artists}}

Delete. Categorizing artists by exhibition, no matter how significant, is not a good idea. If replicated, it would quickly lead to category clutter on artist articles. I'm not opposed to a list, though. - EurekaLott 19:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and optionally Listify as this is inherently POV. There isn't any membership list. Surely somebody has classified somebody as "New York School" without their being shown at that exhibition. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "New York School" actually doesn't refer to a single exhibition, it refers to an art movement/style which arose in 1950s New York.[http://www.iloveny.com/travel_ideas/culture_ae.asp] However, this group is better known as "Abstract expressionists" and we've already got a populated category for that at :Category:Abstract_expressionist_artists. Should probably make sure that these are all included in that category before deleting this one. --Bookgrrl 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Please consider Abstract Expressionism is a collective terminology for an art movement. There are subcategories that define the movement. For example: there is literature on "The San Francisco School of Abstract Expressionism" which is a different style of abstract expressionism then the one known as "New York School Abstract Expressionism." Both are represented by different artists. Their style of work was different. Since there is literature for both and Wikipedia aspires to be encyclopedic the definition in my opinion :Category:New_York_School_artists is appropriate. The New York School artists should not be identified merely with an exhibition. Although the New York School artists of the 1950s defined themselves broadly within a series of self juried exhibitions that included 257 artists in total there were also others that clearly belonged to this category. I would like to emphasize that what ever applies to this group of artists should apply to the entire "List of New York School artists of the 1950s" that are listed from A to Z under the article: New York School. Although most of them are listed with dates of birth and death they have no articles in Wikipedia. Therefore they did not get into the list of :Category:New_York_School_artists as of yet. Thank you for your consideration. Salmon1 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please Consider Information for the question posed by Dhartung "Surely somebody has classified somebody as "New York School" without their being shown at that exhibition." "The Anxious Object Art Today and Its Audience" by Harold Rosenberg, Horizon Press, New York 1964 p.:206 quote: "The term "New York School" raised the implication that a successor to the School of Paris, or an equivalent to it, had been formed on this side of the Atlantic." further discussion In Chapter 21 p.:237 "When, in modern art, a place label is still applied, as in "School of Paris" or, latterly, "New York School," it signifies not so much a home-grown way of painting as a cluster of styles either newly initiated in that locality or given a special inflection there-works in the same mode are also being produced elswhere. Thus "New York School comprises Abstract Expressionists, Geometrical Abstractionists, Neo-Dadaists, Post-Surrealists, all with collaborators throughout the world." Thank you for your consideration Salmon1 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think "New York School" is not completely interchangeable with Abstract Expressionism. Certainly there were non-NY abstract expressionists. I'm not sure the term "New York School" was widely applied to anyone who was not an abstract expressionist. I think a list might be better; I also think we need to clarify the criteria for inclusion, because something like this is useless to the reader if criteria are not clear. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated (see NYS poets discussion below) --Kbdank71 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Leave both the "New York State writers" and "New York State poets" categories. The proposed merge to "New York writers" is not a remedy. First, the latter catgory is ambiguous since it could refer to "New York City" writers. More importantly, whether any or all of the current listees are also "American poets" is beside the point. The issue is the ability to quickly find items organized in a certain way. If one is looking for "New York State poets" or "New York State novelists", one should be able to get a list of such people without having to scroll through a massive list of "American writers" or even "American novelists". Categories like this are useful tools for the user. I favor creating more such discreet categories, not merging them into the equally useful broader ones. User:Cyberbot 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge both into :Category:New York writers. The first category is a misnamed duplicate, and the second (while also poorly named) should be merged because :Category:American poets is not subdivided by state. - EurekaLott 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Doczilla 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge :Category:New York State writers to :Category:New York writers. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge :Category:New York State poets to both :Category:American poets and :Category:New York writers. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I would have proposed that, but there's no need, because all of the articles are already in :Category:American poets. - EurekaLott 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Leave the categories as they are. "New York writers" is itself ambiguous since it could refer to "New York City" writers. Whether any or all of the current listees are also "American poets" is not the issue. The issue is the ability to quickly find items organized in a certain way. If one is looking for "New York State poets" or "New York State novelists", one should be able to get a list of such people without having to scroll through a massive list of "American writers" or even "American novelists". Categories like this are simply tools for the user. I favor creating more such discreet categories, not merging them into the equally useful broader ones. User:Cyberbot 17:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, could become very large. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - illegal where? When? According to whom? >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per >Radiant< Olborne 00:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this vague category that will largely be unconfirmable and potentially includes every food on earth. Doczilla 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (+ with rename), why not? Please reconsider — did you folks actually read the articles? I read all four currently listed, and they include fascinating food info, most of which I would never have heard of without a category. (Ok, reviewers may want to avoid the jumping larva infested cheese.) "Unconfirmable"? They were seriously referenced as I recall. "Vague"? There could be more articles including endangered species, elephant and tiger poaching for examples; cannabis brownies; Somali khat tea (bogus prohibition, Dr. Andrew Weil says it's like strong coffee); and maybe urban drug-laced foods like pre-1903 original cocaine receipe Coca-Cola, and Vin Mariani coca wine (photo endorsed by Pope Leo XIII). Also certain health foods like Stevia herb sweetener in the USA (partly suppressed because it safely competes with patented synthetic sweetners), L-Arginine in Canada (a major amino acid of meat, suppressed because it seriously competes with pharmaceuticals for dieting), and potent vitamins in Europe where big pharma controls several governments, and may globally control more due to the WTO's Codex Alimentarius. Since eating is not optional, I'd say folks even need to know how food laws are being used and misused. Yet this category couldn't be an unlimited list since most of the world's foods are uncontroversial. Milo 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The first article does not even mention illegal in the article. Bottom line this is an ill defined cat. Vegaswikian 07:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Oh? The first article is Casu marzu (with the jumping larva). Quote: "...casu marzu cheese cannot be legally sold in Italy." • Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'd say rather than ill-defined, the cat is just not yet developed. Milo 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• [Thread fix — I think you intended to reply from here? -Milo]

::The category is ill defined. The items listed are not illegal. They may be controlled for sale in some places as your reply above indicates. However that does not mean the item is illegal. It is possible that it is illegal in that one country but again is that only for sale or does it include possesing it? They may be illegal in a specific area, but that is not the same as saying illegal implying everywhere. However in the rest of the work they are legal. Yes, a category for each country that the food is illegal in could be created, but I don't see a need for that currently. Vegaswikian 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Comment Ok, to include your points, a rename for this cat would cover subcats like alcoholic foods/beverages that are locally prohibited, or sold with conditions. How about: Category:Foods selectively or conditionally prohibited for sale. "Selectively" covers world governments (including local) that do or don't prohibit. "Conditionally" covers high potency vitamin prohibition (Spain, Germany, etc.), and Stevia which can be USA sold in bulk but not added to commercial recipies like soft drinks. Possession doesn't need to be separately considered because a possession ban always includes a retail sales ban. Milo 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Radiant. Illegal? when? where? why? And even if renamed, and clarified, "Illegal" should require citations/references. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Say what? Casu marzu: 5 references; Dog meat: 7 references; Monkey brain: 7 references; Smokie: 5 references. Milo 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

General comment {Scratches head} Pardon if I'm missing something obvious, but if not, I propose this category: "Wikipedia editors who somehow can't get their delete vote reasons to align with the article facts." Milo 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The name doesn't say "illegal someplace" and connecting things that are illegal in one country, perhaps only at one time, is too random. Piccadilly 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, I suggest a rename as explained above: Category:Foods selectively or conditionally prohibited for sale. Milo 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly reasonable category. Like Milo says -- look at the articles in the category. Interesting, and all include referenced discussion of the food's legal status. I don't even think it needs a rename. Some food items are simply notably illegal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep either with or without proposed rename. This is actually a very interesting and useful category, and completely sourceable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crudely named and will be misleading under any name. Landolitan 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. David Kernow (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:Italian-American musicians, overcategorized. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete excessive categorization. This category is not as easy to confirm as you might think. Doczilla 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per overcategoriz/sation. David Kernow (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge to :Category:American classical pianists to ensure membership remains categoriz/sed. David Kernow (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:American classical pianists, :Category:Italian-American musicians, overcategorized. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for overly specialized category contrary to Wikipedia category guidelines. Also, category membership is not as easy to confirm as you might think. Doczilla 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom rather than simply deleting in case the articles have been taken out of the higher category. Golfcam 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. David Kernow (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:ZZ Top songs, convention of :Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. --Mike Selinker 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. David Kernow (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, appearance in a single film is not a distinguishing characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: If this film had sequels, then we'd have this category intact. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Daniel Case 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need to duplicate an actor's resume in category form. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Most of the series categories should go. The problem with them is that while being a Superman actor or whatever is a defining characteristic for a few of the relevant people, for most of them it isn't, but they get added to the category regardless. Golfcam 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Massively over-cat'ing. As Golfcam notes, for the one-appearance wonder, it may be a defining characteristic, in which case it will be mentioned in the article on the actor and in the cast list of the movie, BUT to create a cat for individual cast lists? Insanely ridiculous, serves NO purpose whatsoever. Imagine actors who have been in over 100 films... along with Year of birth, Year of death, nationality, obscure other thing, etc. No no no no. Delete with extreme prejudice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete/listify. Listing begun at List of birthplaces of United States presidents . David Kernow (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

: Delete. This category would be much better suited as a list. As a list it could list the presidents that were born at each place. Many articles put in this category do not even mention that any presidents were born there (New York City for example), A list would have much more information and in a better form. -- Samuel Wantman 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and create List per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Listify & delete. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Interesting list of places... Any idea which president was born where? - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. David Kernow (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Rename to :Category:The Wildhearts songs, convention of :Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename.--Mike Selinker 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, somehow I don't see this as a defining characteristic. -- 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this trivia. Doczilla 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, props for reminding me of Tom Gugliotta though. Recury 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I think this is interesting, it sounds more useful in a list (which would also allow for citations/references). - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zero-interest trivia. Merchbow 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete trivial cruftiness Bastiq▼e ^demandez 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not a reasonable category. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge with :Category:Nazi organizations. David Kernow (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:Nazi organizations, probably enough for now... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support quite straightforward. Rama's arrow 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Though I think the final category should be split into two: pre-end of WWII and post-end of WWII (aka V-E day). Atm. no idea what the actual cat names should be, however. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Actors who have played gay characters}}

DeleteThis is not a defining characteristic. There might be hundreds of categories for actors based on characteristics of the characters they have played (actors who have played romantic leads, actors who have played soldiers, actors who have played mothers-in-law, actors who have played French kings, actors who have played married women etc etc) but guess which one we have? Yes, the gay one. I am tired of seeing gay categories on article after article for the most marginal reasons. This systemic bias has to stop. Landolitan 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Bad faith nomination. CovenantD 17:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• That is a groundless slur and I view it as an attempt at intimidation. A bad faith nomination is one that is intended to harm or disrupt Wikipedia and this is a sincere attempt to improve Wikipedia. On the positive side this and unsupported vote below expose that there are no reasons to keep this category that can be mentioned as the only reasons that exist are breaches of :Wikipedia:Neutrality. Landolitan 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's really hard for me to assume good faith when I read this sentence - "I am tired of seeing gay categories on article after article for the most marginal reasons." Not irrelevant categories, not pointless categories, but gay categories. CovenantD 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• This category is pointless and irrelevant so far as achieving the objectives of producing a general encyclopedia with a tidy and consistent category system is concerned. If this category had the same level of pointlessness and irrelevance but related to any other theme, would you be here? It is true that it is relevant to LGBT-advocacy, but it seems to have escaped your notice that Wikipedia is not a gay-advocacy site. If you want, you can create :Category:Actors who have played happily married heterosexuals, then nominate it for deletion, and ask me for my support. I will give it without hesitation. I would do the same for :Category:Actors who have played characters with club feet and :Category:Actors who have played Methodist characters. So I hope you can now see that your allegations are empty and just plain wrong. Landolitan 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I direct your attention to Batman actors and Superman actors (already up for deletion) and :Category:Actors by series and all of it's subcats. Feel free to nominate away. CovenantD 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• See this CfD entry, for a proposal (and 2 additional suggestions) about this very idea : ) - jc37 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• And now there's :Category:Actors by role. CovenantD 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --DrBat 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While we do have many categories for the casts of TV series and movies which make sense, I can't see the benefit of having categories for the supposed personality traits of roles. Further, we don't know the actual proclivities of fictional characters who may appear on screen for only a few lines. So this category is really "Actors who have played characters that Wikipedia editors assume are gay", or "Actors who have played characters with a lisp". -Will Beback 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• There are plenty of characters out there who are actually gay. It's not just guessing, "Ooh, he's effiminate! He must be gay!"--DrBat 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Checking an early name in the alphabet, Jason Alexander, I don't even see any indication of which character is supposed to be gay. What's the useful purpose of this category? -Will Beback
• The same could be said of Betty White and :Category:Batman actors, yet that doesn't reduce the cultural impact of Batman in television and film. (BTW, Ms. White was one of the celebrities who leaned out a window during a "Bat-Climb" sequence in the 60s show. Hardly a noteworthy role yet there it is.) CovenantD 23:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• This is a category for actors, not for characters. If an actor has played one cameo as a gay man and forty lead roles as a married heterosexual, why is the former a defining characteristic of his career but not the latter? (As already mentioned, if they both are we need to have hundreds of categories for types of role played, something which doesn't bear thinking about and so far as I know has not been contemplated in any other context.)Landolitan 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not an essential characteristic. Greg Grahame 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Will Beback. And what's with all the violations of WP:AGF? Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all "actors who have played X" categories, as none of them are descriptive of the actors in question or of the roles that they play. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sean Curtin Olborne 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Metabaron5 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Landolitan and Sean Curtin. Rama's arrow 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. --musicpvm 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. Piccadilly 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As stated above, this category states a trivial part of many actor's careers. Beno1000 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please it has been a useful tool for X-referencing various movies, plays, TV Shows etc. with LGBT characters. CyntWorkStuff 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This may not be a defining characteristic, but it is an important characteristic. For a young person/teenager, being able to see the number and quality of actors and actresses that have taken on gay roles and whose careers haven't suffered can be eye-opening. "Serial Killers" doesn't offer the same virtue, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• That says it all really. You want to keep this category to change people's attitudes. Non-neutrality can't get much clearer than that. Landolitan 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - See this CfD entry for reasons. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Bad faith. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Please read my above comments and have the decency to apologise for this groundless attack. Landolitan 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In line with any other such category. Wikipedia is not a movie database. Hoylake 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. The keep arguments, such as they are, are just a demand for special treatment. Golfcam 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Back to front characterisation and a bad precedent. Actors are already in too many categories. Merchbow 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• "Actors are in too many categories" See Special:Mostcategories: baseball players form 8 of the top 10 articles in the most categories. There is no maximum number of categories per article. Why do you consider this to be harmful? Tim! 17:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Because it makes the key categories difficult to spot, especially if the categories are in a messy order. The original guidance was the articles should be in no more than 4 or 5 categories. It wouldn't have been a good idea to make that a rigid rule, but we have moved much too far from it, and I can only see things getting worse. As a general rule most of the utility in the category system lies in the first two or three categories on an article. The category system is a navigation tool, not a database or a search system. Merchbow 12:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• So it's not really an actor specific problem then is it? Tim! 21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Choalbaton 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per every other actors who have played X CFD. Recury 19:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not think this was a bad faith nomination, and Landolitan has a point that needs to be addressed. Since no one else will, I will. I think the catagory should be kept so that it is easy to navigate to find such characters that are of INTEREST to certain people. One can easily say that "Well, this is pointless since reason X" but not all people will agree that reason X is what they worry about when they are looking for information. It shouldn't be about 'enlightneing' people, but making a large, unwielding mass of information easier to search and find things in -- and yes, since it's a navigation system, to get to as well. Finally, keeping an NPOV in this is difficult, but I can't find how Wikipedia will be improved by this deletion. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:*If the category were "Gay characters" then that would make sense. However in most of these articles there's no indication which character that the actor played is supposed to be gay. -Will Beback 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::*Mmm. Good point. Blast your logic. :) --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not an important characteristic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A trivial category that skews the category system. Nonomy 10:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 10:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This could become a fine list or article. As such, it could reference the roles played, the dates, etc... All "Actors who have played..." categories should be deleted because it will add to pointless clutter. If playing a specific role or type of role is important to an actor it should be mentioned in the article about the actor. It can then be linked to an article or list. If it is not important enough to be mentioned, it is not worthy of a link. BTW, Jason Alexander played a flaming drama queen with AIDS in Love! Valour! Compassion!. His mis-casting was noted in many reviews, and soured his film career. -- Samuel Wantman 18:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, useful category, per Will Beback; certainly more useful than :Category:Lists of characters on The Simpsons to some. The nomination may or not be in bad faith; the nominator is clearly a homophobe and bigot however as s/he states: "I am tired of seeing gay categories on article after article for the most marginal reasons. This systemic bias has to stop." Substitute out "gay" for "black", "Jewish", "Irish", "Latino" etc. and you can see where it leads. Carlossuarez46 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Your comments are intimidatory and libellous. I would object to any attempt to use Wikipedia to serve a political agenda, but the only lobby that persistent has the nerve to try to do that, and feels that it is above criticism for doing so, is the LGBT lobby. Blacks, Jews, Irish, Latinos etc all play by the rules on the whole, but you and too many of your allies don't but rather try to stuff articles with as many articles as possible to raise the profile of your cause. The point has been made that this category only exists because the LGBT lobby is hyperactive on Wikipedia. Naturally Wikipedia's biases are fashionable biases, and the LGBT lobby is the most assertive and self-righteous lobby there is right now. No other lobby shows such a lack of restraint or perspective, or is so ill-mannered to its opponents. Don't you think you sound a little like a medieval priest calling for the burning of someone who has dared to question to teaching of the established church? You make think you are the opposite of that sort of person, but in your shrill intolerance of dissent for the establishment orthodoxy, you are just the same. As for :Category:Lists of characters on The Simpsons it categorises articles which are about list of characters on The Simpsons by their two most defining characteristics, ie. that they are lists and that the cover characters in The Simpsons. It also feeds neatly into its two parent categories. That is the function of categories; they group the articles we have in ways that make it easier for people to navigate to them, by highlighting their most essential characteristics. The category under discussion does not focus on essential characteristics, indeed being an actor who has played a gay character might not be in the top hundred defining characteristics of some of the people in the category (as has been pointed out, in some cases it is not important enough for anyone to have bothered to mention it in the article). Decisions about what topics to cover should be made at article level: if the lists of Simpsons characters are deleted as trivial, then it follows that the category should be deleted as well, but for as long as the articles exist they should be in a category that groups them in accordance with their defining characteristics. But here we are dealing with articles about actors, and the issue of the notability of the articles is not relevant. Landolitan 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, homosexuality may well be a defining characteristic of the character the actor played, but it does not follow that playing a character with that defining characteristic is a defining characteristic of the actor. I would equally vote delete for "Actors who have played Albert Einstein" or "Actors who have voiced Winnie-the-Pooh". --RobertG ♬ talk 08:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No one has presented an argument for the proposition that this is an essential characteristic of any actor. Hanbrook 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus --Kbdank71 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form}}

Delete, Very specific category; the category Hugo Award winning works already covers this, and an article exists on the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form which details the award winners. Also:

• :Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
• :Category:Hugo Award Winner for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
• :Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
• :Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
• :Category:Hugo Award Winner for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
• Delete; The first two are subcategories of original nom; last three are nominated for same reason, covered by the parent category and the article Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. Shannernanner 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. And the name is so long! CovenantD 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see the problem with subdividing :Category:Hugo Award winning works. If every work that won was in that category, it quickly would become unwieldy. - EurekaLott 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't see the point of long form vs. short form. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:Comment The difference is in their length.. Long form refers unto films whereas short: television episodes. DrWho42 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "Seeing the point" is not necessarily relevant here. Why? Because whether they're right or wrong to have split the award into long and short form categories is not our call to make. The fact is the Hugo people did make this division and the categories are just reflecting that. After 2001 the Academy Awards had two animation categories; :Category:Best Animated Feature Academy Award winners and :Category:Best Short Film Academy Award winners. Maybe they were wrong to do so as well, but they did so and the categories exist to recognize that. That's the reason to keep.--T. Anthony 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per T. Anthony and EurekaLott. The categories were created in order to distinguish betwixt the rest of the Hugo Award winning works (i.e., novels and short-storeys) with films/television awarded or nominated (which is why the corresponding categories were created and would only increase with the progression of time). DrWho42 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per discussion. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Teen comics}}

Is this for comics featuring teens? Comics for teenagers? The description says it's for comics about teens/young adults, but the category title is too broad. It shouldn't exist anymore, too broad of a subject. There is comics for pre-teens and adults as well, that doesn't mean categories need to be made, it's just too general. RobJ1981 15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Badly named for the intended purpose, which is overly broad anyway. Almost all mainstream comics have had a recurring character that fits into the age category. CovenantD 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete badly named, excessively broad category. Doczilla 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comics written by teens? Delete. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, poorly named and potentially vague, e,g, is New Warriors a teen comic even though the cast weren't teens by the series' end? -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Valid category but people have been dumping all kinds of junk in there. Perhaps rewrite the definition? Palendrom 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Change definition and clean up. I originally created the category to include articles about comics with a distinct focus on teenage characters such as Young Avengers, Teen Titans, Generation X, and Gen13 but it has kind of snowballed from there. I think if we drop young adults from the definition it may make things easier. Comics have had a long heritage of unique "teen comics" and I think the category is a necessary one.--Tuberculosisness 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Time and Age are two rather slippery concepts in comics, and as such, this topic really could use some references and time frames. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not best presented through the category structure. Hiding Talk 21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete :Category:GA-Class Countries articles --Kbdank71 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:GA-Class Countries articles, or the reverse, no particular preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete :Category:GA-Class Countries articles. --- RockMFR 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse Merge per nom (preferring the singular - "country".) - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename to {{c|Fictional Bengali}} ("Bengali" is both singular and plural). David Kernow (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Rename to :Category:Fictional Bengali, convention of :Category:Fictional characters by origin. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Fictional Bengalis. --musicpvm 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Real Person Fic}}

Delete, Category with only one entry, and I can't imagine what else could go there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above plus unclear name. David Kernow (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This sounds like an article waiting to happen : ) - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, or at least rename to :Category:Ice hockey players forced to retire because of an irregular heartbeat. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. It is difficult to determine the importance of health factors in when an athlete retires. Handle in articles. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's not start the "by cause of almost-death" categories, please.--Mike Selinker 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; terribly specific and possibly suspect along the lines of :Category:Politicians who retired in order to spend more time with their families.-choster 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete needs citations/references, which cannot be done with a category in this case. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia. The category system should not be seen as an opportunity to regurgitate the whole of Wikipedia's contents. Merchbow 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Not a bad category. Categories are a way to regurgitate the contents. Why else is there a category for "Living People"? The date of birth and the lack of a date of death should be enough. 35.11.236.45 18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; listify (with citations) if interested. David Kernow (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. David Kernow (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Tamil sportspersons to :Category:Tamil sportspeople

• Rename, in line with the convention used for :Category:Sportspeople. Osomec 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename I agree. Rama's arrow 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Tong Fuk}}

Category with only one article. This category is not needed as we have the parent category: "Lantau Island". minghong 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - overcat. Seems very unlikely to be expanded. Picaroon9288 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Lantau Island - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Pui O}}

Category with only one article. This category is not needed as we have the parent category: "Lantau Island". minghong 12:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - overcat. Seems very unlikely to be expanded. Picaroon9288 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Upmerge to Lantau Island - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ayrshire}}

Delete, only two children. already categories for Schools in Ayrshire and for Roman Catholic Schools Smeddlesboy 11:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that it might be better to withdraw this nom, and gather up all the Ayrshire categories can nominate them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ayrshire+school&fulltext=Search all] at once. :Category:Secondary schools in South Ayrshire, for example. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - all the categorisation of Scottish articles is by council area, eg. see :Category:Schools in Scotland by council area, not the former counties abolished in 1975. --Mais oui! 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - all the categorisation of Scottish articles is by council area only because Mais oui! wants it that way, and he will fight to the death anybody who suggests otherwise. (Watch out he doesn't accuse you of sockpuppetry - that's one of his favourite ploys. Boy, don't the Orcadians know it!) 81.156.57.128 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:*The above edit is the 5th-ever edit from that IP address by {{User|Mallimak}}. --Mais oui! 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per Jc37 and Mais Oui --Guinnog 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per Mais oui! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• This seems like the most correct wording. Calling a category of terms a glossary is redundant, and there's a capitalization error as well. Dmcdevit·t 10:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 10:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename although I have doubts about the usefulness of this category. Terms/concepts can be subdivided into philosophy, history, etc. and thus allocated to other categories. Rama's arrow 16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. An article only about a term would be nothing more than a [WP:WINAD|dictionary definition]], it seems, while every article title is a term already. If we could disband and rework this entirely, that would probably be better. Dmcdevit·t 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete apparently WP:NOT rules out Wikipedia as a dictionary. The articles themselves can be allocated to one of the subcategories of :Category:Sikhism. Rama's arrow 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Glossaries are lists of terms with their definitions. Categories can't do that. Glossaries are perfectly valid Wikipedia articles. See List of glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Are you suggesting we convert it into an article? In that case why should we rename and not delete the cat? Rama's arrow

• Rename per nom. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} Rename. Nishkid64 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:Cape verdean-portuguese people to :Category:Cape Verdean-Portuguese people

• Rename, capital letters. Matt86hk talk 09:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy rename per criterion 2. Picaroon9288 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Rename - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename to a more suitable name. This lists e.g. 007, 42 and 90210 and other numbers from popular works, and the title should reflect that. It also presently contains some numbers with important mathematical properties (e.g. Pi and -1) but we have different cats for that. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename, though I don't think you need "used."--Mike Selinker 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, :Category:Numbers in pop culture. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to {{c|Significant numbers}} or the like, as I'm not sure all numbers in the category are used in pop culture...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per revised nom. A name like significant numbers would likely be confused with significant figures. - EurekaLott 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Good point... How about {{c|Culturally-significant numbers}}, as I don't think all the numbers in the category have pop culture significance...?  Regards, David (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as current name. Every other proposal has weaknesses, but I see nothing wrong with the "famous numbers" name. --- RockMFR 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• "Famous" is one of those POV words to be avoided...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Famous numbers" sounds weird to me. I mean, who hasn't heard of the number 12? Also, for example, should 24 (number) be in the category or should 24 (TV series)?. You know, if we thought about it long enough, we could probably include every number in the category, if it's going to be about pop culture... loads of films, tv shows, bands, songs, etc, have numbers in them. I think it should be a delete. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename or delete - it seems to be a trivia category to me, but as it seems it will be kept at least move it to a more accurate name. Oh, and add 42 and 47 - the Ultimate Answer and the Star Trek recurring number are both omitted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Karloff-Awards}}

If Google is to be trusted these awards don't exist which is kind of bizzare for supposedly an "American award directed for Horror & Suspense Films since 1976.". I have left a message on the creator's talk page but got no response. IMdB does not seem to know about it either which leads me to think that the award is at best beyond obscure. Pascal.Tesson 06:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete since we don't have an article on that. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, these may be some sort of fan award but aren't notable and certainly aren't verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Until somebody proves otherwise, they don't exist. HamishMacBeth 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I found many results, but they all said the exact same thing. Here's one example: [http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/rec-answers/msg00966.html]. Seems to be a student award? - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a List of groups referred to as cults with the proper disclaimers and established criteria. Categorizing a groups as an "alleged cult", does not provide readers with the context necessary to understand who and when that group was referred to as a cult, and thus violates WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't worry so much about POV pushing since it states that groups must meet the criteria at List of groups referred to as cults, but I do think that (a) that makes it redundant with the list (which results in extra work keeping two substantially identical pages up-to-date), and (b) the List does it better since, as Jossi points out, the category doesn't provide any context and the List article does. --Bookgrrl 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this speculative, poorly defined category. Wryspy 05:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pure POV-pushing and poorly defined; pretty much everyone could be an alleged cult leader LaszloWalrus 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, pretty sure I've seen this one before. Inherent POV, at any rate. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above, didn't this come up before? This is an example of POV-pushing through categorization, not a good idea. Puppy Mill 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. We've gone through this before. It's speculative, unnecessary, and undefined. Doczilla 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Actually it is not undefined. The criteria requires that an allegation of being a cult be registered in List of groups referred to as cults. -Will Beback 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That obscures my issue with "alleged" - the criteria at List of groups referred to as cults are consensed as "referred to", not "alleged" from which criminality is typically inferred by readers. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no encyclopedic value. --Tbeatty 06:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Like all categories, there should be a reference to the characteristic in the article. The "List of groups referred to as cults" also contains links to the allegations. Categories serve the purpose of allowing readers to navigate among similar articles, which lists do not. This category is already a compromise, created as a child of :category:cults. That category survived a CfD recently Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28#Category:Cults. -Will Beback 04:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The closing was "nearly a consensus to keep". There was no consensus to keep. The category should have beed deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::We require a consensus to delete, not a consensus to keep. -Will Beback 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::The closing admin could have ruled 'keep but he did not. He chose a pretty ambiguous statement, IMO. I have asked the closing admin for clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A key point which I agree with Jossi on is that categories don't allow for annotation so there is no way to answer the 'alleged by whom' question that WP:AWW would require. The header at :Category:Alleged_cults is one imperfect solution (imperfect due to the inherent limitation of categories which don't allow for annotation). Simply labeling organizations as 'cults' is problematic since the definition is subjective in the usage the vast majority of WP readers would bring to the article--the academic literature on cults is sparse and in disagreement so :Category:Cults and by extension :Category:Cult leaders will be constantly in flux. List of groups referred to as cults has a codified approach to this problem and the Alleged cults category header leverages this by requiring membership there, which would apply to 'alleged cult leaders' by extension. See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:Cult_leaders deletion nomination for Category:Cult Leaders] by same nominator and I'm pretty sure :Category:Alleged cults also has an AfD history if someone can dig it up. Antonrojo 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest that :Category:Alleged_cults not only leverages the codification at List of groups referred to as cults, a good idea; it also abuses it by attaching to that page a POV label of "alleged" not consensed there. List of groups referred to as cults went through a "purported" name stage that was changed to "referred to" be more NPOV. "Alleged" is worse since it is routinely associated with arrests and indictments in most newspapers. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As Will points out, this category was created as a compromise, something I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of those voting "Delete" knew already but neglected to mention. Here's the question I have, and that I always bring up every time someone tries to delete one of these lists, categories, or series: What do you want? In which form will you find it acceptable that the POV that there are cults out there which merit concern is represented? Per WP:NPOV it must be represented, being hardly a minority view, yet I swear I see the same names voting to delete List of groups that have been referred to as cults and then voting to delete :Category:Cults because it doesn't do what a list could; voting to delete :Category:Cults because it supposedly pushes the POV that the groups are cults, rather than reflecting the verifiable fact that they are often alleged to be, then voting to delete :Category:Alleged cults because -- because what? Because it is somehow inherently POV-pushing to acknowledge that a great many people do in fact believe a group to be a cult, and somehow it's not POV-pushing to try and squash any mention of that POV? I'll ask again, because I ask this question every time, and strangely enough, no one ever offers an answer: If you're not happy with how Wikipedia currently reflects these real-world concerns about cults, what will you be happy with? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Comment Respectfully, I suggest that you present a sincerely-felt but logically-false dicotomy. My understanding is that you are saying there is only a choice between "is/are"ing particular cults (when cultic NRMs want to officially deny that label), or "alleging" particular cults (making all of them sound like criminals when only a small percentage are). The reference, aka "referred to", makes for a viable third option, and (so far) it has tested as NPOV-enough at List of groups referred to as cults. (Page find down for my answer to your question "What do you want?" in a comment below.)

::Comment No one is stating that there are no such a thing as "cults". The problem is that there is no criteria for what warrants an inclusion in such category. For example, if there is only one source that asserts that groups X is a cult, would this be sufficient for generically categorizing group X as a cult? If the criteria is tightened, so that only groups about which there is wide consensus that they are a "cult", then maybe the category can stay with an appropriate disclaimer and criteria. The second problem for such categorization is that there are disputes about what a cult is annd there are conflicting definitions of the term cult. As such, this category does not specify which definition is used. The article Cult lists five competing definitions of the term. So, which one of these is used to categorize a group as an "alleged cult"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Comment I think that if this "alleged" category is changed to a category of references, and remains linked to the rules at List of groups referred to as cults, no additional criteria would be needed for what warrants an inclusion in a category. I supposed folks could still complain about the rules at List of groups referred to as cults, but the "Category:Alleged cults" editors bought partly into that idea on their own. I think they need to buy in the rest of the way, and see if it works as well for the category as at the list itself. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Comment. I'm not sure about the appropriateness of rearranging other people's votes. Rearranging them like this fails to capture the direction of the discourse and could make it look like the trend over time changed from delete to keep. Doczilla 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::Comment: Or, alternately, could over-emphasize the delete votes by presenting all those to the reader first. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Agreed. The closers know how to read a discussion. This was just made into a vote count. Please refrain from doing this again. --Kbdank71 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(reset tab) Comment I think categorization is helpful and more than a vote count because it points out an important split which I think contributes to this CfD repeatedly returning. By grouping the votes in categories tied to specific edits that can be made (and notifying the editors that this has been done to confirm the groupings), it will be easier to figure out what everyone is suggesting. Some delete-vote editors seem to be suggesting relying on consensus to define cults while others argue that it is an inherently subjective category...this is a fundamental difference in deciding how to categorize these groups. I agree that the order of the comments could affect voting...putting comments first is one approach and another is adding a vote count at the top. Antonrojo 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:It's not appropriate for one person to decide how everyone else's comments should be arranged. For one reason (among many), some people's remarks may be in response to other people's responses. My "vote" is not yours to play with. (And adding a "vote count" at the top would fly in the face of Wikipedia's overt statement that this is not a vote.) Your enthusiasm and conscientiousness are appreciated, but please leave other people's remarks alone. Wryspy 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:Another approach is leaving the discussion as is. This is not a vote, so categorizing or adding vote counts is not appropriate. --Kbdank71 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this is indeed a difficult case. I'm very impressed by Antonrojo and Feldspar's reasoning, and I'm inclined to agree with them - Clay and Webster in the offing? Rama's arrow 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "alleged" version, or Keep/recreate with rename, like Category:Cult References. I think there would be nothing wrong with a "referred to" or "references" categorization — it's the "alleged" that's most unfairly POV right now. • My other comments on various issues are placed under votes above. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

General comment Antaeus Feldspar also asks everyone (page find his vote section above), "What do you want?" and my answer is: I want a dynamic balance (a bicycle-like analogy) between: reporting of cults using a general terminology that's benign (typically they are a new religious movement (NRM) practicing devotions in locations x and y); and, providing reporting of them that's sufficiently detailed in the current context (say, if ex-members report mind-control or other cultic abuse), while resisting a variety of unbalancing pressures from overzealous anti-cultists and harshly competitive major religions. • Yes, it can be done. Interested editors can educate themselves in both NRM religious tolerance and government/police cultwatch journalism, from the references assembled at Cult and List of groups referred to as cults. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - As noted above, "alleged" - citations/references, which cannot be done in the case. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Cult" is a term used to describe a reilgious group that one doesn't like. Since every religious group has someone who doesn't like them, this category is essentially identical to Category:New religious movements. We don't have a seperate category for "allegedly false religions" – that's because it is similarly identical to Category:religions. The only reason that these inherently subjective lists and categories have lasted so long on Wikipedia is that very few adherents to new religous movements happen to be Wikipedia editors. What do I want? I want you to keep your religious beliefs on your own website. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, I want to retain the category, but renamed with "reference" or "referred to" to replace the biased "alleged". I think you want to permanently delete all such categories and lists, so I'll debate against doing that. • ""Cult" is a term used to describe a religious group that one doesn't like." That is the pre-educated view from where I also began editing. Allow me to pop your stereotype: Alcoholics Anonymous is scientifically-proved to be a cult, is actively engaged in the popularly understood cultic-behavior of mind-controlling its members [http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/a/aa/is_aa_cult.htm (Alexander & Rollins, 1984, quoted)], but they are proved beneficial to members [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15943643&dopt=Abstract (Vaillant, 2005)], and they are a religious group (the "higher power" belief requirement in Step 5 is neither optional nor trivial); yet, contrary to your definition, most people like or at least don't dislike AA. The term "cult" has several reasonably well-defined meanings, but Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance say that most people only learn one definition and need to learn more. I respectfully suggest that you take their advice — I did. • "this category is essentially identical to Category:New religious movements." They do overlap, but the critical difference is the input from the cult watch mandate via reliable source references. That unnamed mandate, which evolved from decades of fears and complaints by global citizens, was galvanized in governments by the 1978 Peoples Temple cult murder of USA Congressman Leo Ryan. The mandate is implemented by many governments, but is best documented on the national level by the 1995/2005 "French Report" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Exclusive_to_the_French_Report]. • Perhaps things have changed at Wikipedia since you first heard debate on this subject. I'm not aware of the "inherently subjective lists and categories" that you mention, but I can assure you that any Wikipedia category based on the rules at List of groups referred to as cults does objectively point to Reliable Sources who claimed that a group was a cult. You may claim that the Reliable Sources were being subjective, but many ex-members of cults have well-documented tales of emotional, financial, or sexual abuse to tell you about before you make that judgement. Nonetheless, it's Wikipedia's categorizing and listing mission only to point to those Reliable Source reports, then yours only if you choose to do further research on whether they have merit. Please allow other researchers that same continued choice. Milo 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently: POV, undefined, subjective. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete + Comment: Both “alleged” and “cult” are Words to Avoid under Wikipolicy. In particular, the word “alleged” is useless without identifying who is doing the alleging, and - more importantly - the word “cult” suffers from the dual problem that it is both pejorative and lacks a generally accepted definition, which makes it particularly unsuitable for category titles. The List of groups referred to as cults, which includes things as diverse as Alcoholics Anonymous, Jungian psychology, Mary Kay Cosmetics and Wikipedia (!), illustrates this fundamental problem: a person’s labelling of a group as a “cult” usually tells us more about his opinion of the group than about the group itself.

:In response to Antaeus Feldspar’s plea above “I ask this question every time, and strangely enough, no one ever offers an answer: If you're not happy with how Wikipedia currently reflects […] real-world concerns about cults, what will you be happy with?”:

:Here is an answer. Although of course I cannot speak for everyone.

:Wikipedia editors should adhere to Wikipolicy, and in particular WP:WTA as noted above, and refrain from category titles containing controversial labels such as “cult” or “sect” and from otherwise using such terms to describe groups generally, because they express negative and controversial value judgments that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Having said that, the views of anti-cult groups and others concerned about so-called “cults” DO have a place on Wikipedia and I have absolutely NO problem with Wikipedia acknowledging that such views exist and are in fact widespread. Use of the words “cult”, “sect” etc. are entirely appropriate in that context. The proper form for this would be in the main text of an article, where the reader can be informed that a certain person, group or government considers the group to be a cult or sect and explaining what they mean by the label and why they hold that view. One useful example of this approach can be seen in the article on the Objectivist Movement. — Really Spooky 23:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename as per Antaeus Feldspar's most impressive reasoning above. However I would prefer renaming, see comment below. Smeelgova 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
• Comment, why not simply move/rename the category to :Category:Groups referred to as cults ? We could then keep the intro/inclusion criteria language at the top, and there shouldn't be any controversy if the list article and the category article have the exact same name and criteria. Smeelgova 08:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
• Per above, alleged is a red flag. No encyclopedic value to this category. Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)d
• Delete Both "alleged" and "cult" are loaded terms, and pre-judge the issue. Also, a category like this confuses matters by grouping together many organisations which have nothing in common. Dexton 09:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the category specifies criteria for inclusion. Members of the category must meet the criteria of the List of groups referred to as cults. While this list does a good job of avoiding POV issues around cults, I don't think that it can substitute for a category. If this category didn't exist, it would likely be recreated, possibly without the criteria for inclusion currently in place. Antonrojo 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::The difference, Anton, is that in an article you can write and present some context. Catgeories that use two words that are Wikipedia:Words to avoid ("alleged" and "cult") are a POV magnet that can be exploited for reasons unrelated to "nagigational aid" as argued above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:::WP:WTA provides stronger support for 'alleged cult' than a 'cult' category when it states "In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because..."" and elsewhere the same section states that a scientific or sociological definition of cult would be acceptable. In my mind, deleting the article is a stop-gap solution unless there is either a suitable replacement category or a ban on reforming the same category in a different guise. So what I take from WP:WTA is that the best option is to provide a precise, and ideally academic, definition of cult and then provide authorities that state that the group meets this definition. The current 'alleged cults' approach is an attempt to do both, and I think it should be improved rather than scrapped. Antonrojo 04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::::WP:WTA does not provide any support for either “alleged cult” or “cult” as a category. Rather (as you note), it recommends: “don't say “X is a cult”, say “so and so has called X a ‘cult’ because...”. And whilst acknowledging there is a neutral sociological definition, WP:WTA points out that “…the author shouldn't use the term in that sense without explaining exactly what he/she is doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people.” Neither of these aims can be accomplished practically or effectively in a category title; they require further discussion and explanation.

::::A question to those who want to keep the “Cults” category and others like it: What is it you wish to accomplish? If Antaeus Feldspar’s comment above is any indication, it is to ‘represent the POV that there are cults out there which merit concern’. This is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the categorization guidelines at WP:CG: “Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.” — Really Spooky 07:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per above; never delete compromises, as that throws everything out of balance; but always delete compromises where both sides are promoting unencyclopedic logic. — Deckiller 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete it's a meaningless descriptionMomento 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete --Kbdank71 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Obelisk Blue Duelists}}

{{lc|Slifer Red Duelists}}

Delete. Yugicruft, plain and simple. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The Yu-Gi-Oh! GX character category is sufficient. --Benten 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant fancruft. Wryspy 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and if we can just delete Yugi-oh from the public conciousness too? ThuranX 01:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename/merge to :Category:Female rappers --Kbdank71 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Category:African Female rappers to :Category:African American female rappers

• Rename, These are all African-Americans, there's no room to categorize female artists born in Africa or Europeans of African heritage.Cleversnail 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to include race, gender, and occupation in one category. Also, :Category:Female rappers itself is not very large, so there is no reason to subcategorize. --musicpvm 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, merge back into :Category:Female rappers as they seem to have been removed from this category when added to the other one. --musicpvm 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Musicpvm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryspy (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 October 2006
• Merge/delete as overcat. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 10:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per musicpvm. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:African-American female rappers (note the hyphen), per a similar discussion on a previous CfD. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.