< June 24	June 26 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom (and Hmains has kindly volunteered below to populate subcategories). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Vietnam War whats? The proposal is taken from the main article Opposition to the Vietnam War. Chicheley 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as nom. Chicheley 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is going to be a list of people, I would think it should be named similarly to other people categories: 'People opposed to the Vietnam War' with a subcategory of 'American people opposed to the Vietnam War' Thanks Hmains 00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of non-bio articles in it. Golfcam 16:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest rename to Category:Opposition to the Vietnam War* per nom and create subcategory Category:People opposed to the Vietnam War per Hmains...?

* or Category:Vietnam War opposition and rename main article to Vietnam War opposition...?

Regards, David Kernow 01:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Postdlf 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Perhaps 'Anti-Vietnam War activists' would be a better sub-cat that 'American people opposed to the Vietnam War'. --Soman 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 16:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --M@rēino 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: the rename is nice, but the category should be composed of non-bio articles plus separate subcategories to hold the bio articles, named 'Anti-Vietnam War activists' and 'American Anti-Vietnam War activists'. This would match the naming structure of other 'activist' categories. I will work on these subcats next weekend. Hmains 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier precedent on Category:Deceased fictional characters; see discussion there. And the absurdity of describing fictional characters as alive or dead generally is even more striking with comic book characters, whose "deaths" and shocking returns are longstanding cliche. Postdlf 22:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absurd is putting it mildly, especially for the X-Men - they've pretty much all died at one time or another. CovenantD 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. X-men is an ongoing series, and so, unlike the massive field of fiction in general, where there are an uncountable number of characters, many of whom die in the course of their book/movie/etc, there are actually a fairly limited number of X-men that are dead at any given time. As for whether or not it's fancruft, I make no argument. But the overall "absurdity" argument applied to such a broad category as "deceased fictional characters" does not carry over here. LordAmeth 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Or perhaps a rename to Category:Temporarily deceased characters from the X-Men comic books? I kid. --TJive 23:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, comic book characters die and come back to life. But editors can and already do keep track of that. Properly maintained, the category can be a useful research tool for those so inclined to see which X-Men are currently dead. --Perceive 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: A potential for confusion arises in that there are multiple versions of characters in different continuities (say Beast in the 616 lineup vs. Beast in the Ultimate line). To keep things absolutely clear, maybe the category name should specify that it refers to the 616 universe.--Perceive 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "properly maintaining" it to reflect current comics continuity, the category was created only four days ago, and yet six of its 22 entries—Cannonball, Colossus, Magneto, Northstar, Psylocke, and Warlock—are described by their respective articles as alive in current Marvel comics continuity (many with very clear section headers such as "death and return"). That's not even counting the ever-resurrecting Jean Grey, and the others such as Bedlam, whose deaths are described as "apparent." Remember the old truism—only Bucky stays dead. Or maybe that's not even true either... Postdlf 05:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also comic book death—"in the X-Men books...a number of characters have joked about the fact that "Mutant Heaven" has no pearly gates, only revolving doors." Postdlf 05:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. CovenantD pretty much covered it. --DrBat 00:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would a list article be better for this subject? Kurieeto 00:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lists are great, but nearly every character on the X-teams is or has been deceased--some of them many, many times, and would therefore qualify for the list. Given that fact, it doesn't seem useful to me. Breakaway 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No living/dead categories for fictional characters. Has Dark Phoenix taught us nothing?--Mike Selinker 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its been covered above --Anon 64 11:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its been covered above. Golfcam 16:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know if my comment holds any weight as the creator of the category, but I think it should be kept. I agree that it needs some restructuring (some of the entries were for previously deceased characters, as noted in the intro paragraph, but I agree that that is confusing. Thank you to Perceive and LordAmeth for your positive comments and faith in this category. I would be more than happy to work with whomever to make this category something of substance and a proper research tool for our users. Respectfully Tullyman 02:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you make a list article instead, and describe every incident in which the death of an X-Man was depicted? That way the article can explain whether the apparent death was just a ruse, temporary death followed by resurrection, or permanent to-date. And it can distinguish between "deaths" that the writers intended to be fake or temporary at the time the stories were written, and deaths that were intended to be actual until contradicted by subsequent stories. Postdlf 06:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a list article would be a great idea. It would offer more information that a simple category and would be a useful research tool. Breakaway 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the precedent. Remember, fiction is eternally present; the events of Uncanny X-Men #1, Giant-Sized X-Men #1, or Uncanny #451 (the issue on shelves right now) are all present-tense, so all of these characters are just as alive as they are dead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above --Smerus 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is approaching fancruft, and also this category is useless because in the Marvel Universe, no character with his/her own name ever stays dead. JIP | Talk 09:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 17:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have finished updating the category to be more specific (as per the Main Marvel Universe) and removed the currently "revived" X-Men. Please do not delete my category! I do not know how to make a list category, so if someone could show me that would be great. Or feel free to do it yourself! Again, please do not delete my category! Respectfully Tullyman 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at WP:CLS for how to do that. It's nice and easy. TheGrappler 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TheGrappler 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Currently deceased X-Men. Covers the "return of" storylines. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiction is eternally present, though. Every single X-Men member who has ever been alive is still alive right now, just as every single X-Men member who has ever died is dead right now. "Right now" applies to both Uncanny X-Men #1 and Uncanny X-Men #450. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains multiple movements such as Chipko movement, Gaia Movement, and Car-free movement, along with its primary self-article Environmental movement. Given these multiple sub-movements I believe the category name should be pluralized like Category:Literary movements. Kurieeto 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nom. Have left renaming suggestion for this category's main article which, if taken up, may provide new category name. Regards, David Kernow 01:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC), updated 01:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I apologise. I've created this category following the french wikipedia habits. I remember only after while browsing that english wikipedia use plural in category with name as 'political movements' etc --Ayanoa 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thanks for your interest in the topic! David Kernow 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, in lieu of response to the above. David Kernow 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is being considered for deletion based on the following arguments:

1. It is a weasel category designed to circumvent the Words to avoid policy on Terrorism.
2. It is inherently POV, since the title of the category begs the question "Accused by whom?" - which automatically translates into a POV and thus makes the category's existence not neutral.
3. May invite counter categories such as "Organizations that deny terrorist links" or what have you.
4. The category will invite dispute over which organizations have the credibility and qualifications to accuse another of terrorism, and which do not.
5. The current practice of listing all such accusations of terrorism in the body of the article, which provides for more neutrality and careful wording, is sufficient.
6. The category may even end up applying to most countries that are accused of terror or state terror, thus making a mess out of Wikipedia.

• Delete Guy Montag 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ramallite ^(talk) 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Creator of Category:

• Category creation motivation: I was not attempting to get around the words to avoid policy but rather trying to make an honest attempt to deal with a difficult area. The category Category:Terrorist organizations seemed to POV to apply to articles. Thus I discussed the idea of creating an "accused" category with Moshe before hand here [1] and he agreed [2]. Although, Moshe then pushed Ramallite to put this category up for CfD in this discussion: [3].
• A bit of context: there exists pages which list terrorist organizations here List_of_terrorist_organisations and here U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations. There is also a new category (which recently survived CfD and which was motivated by the creation of my "accused" cat) here: Category:Designated terrorist organizations. There is also a widely used Category:Terrorists category. As mentioned, there once was a category: Category:Terrorist organizations but it was deleted for being to POV.

Comment. The category Category:Terrorist organizations was not deleted because of WP:POV, but because of the missing 'designated' word. Intangible 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is important to realize that the category terrorism is regularly applied to organizations -- almost every organization I moved into the "accused" category was already categorized in the terrorism category -- thus they were already associated with the term -- I believe my category at least clarified the association.
• Ramallite's claim above that it is going to apply to countries is unfounded -- this is about organizations, not countries. If someone wants to create such a category they are free to but it is not appropriate to conflate that category with this one.

(NOTE: I rewrote my response -- see history if interested.) --Ben Houston 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment above which is unintentional and apologize for its bad faith. However, I should make clear that the list above is not my own list, but a summary of the main arguments I found on the category's talk page (some of which are my own, yes). So when I wrote "Based on the following arguments", I should have clarified that they are arguments made on the talk page (which I went through to write this list) and not at all my own rant against any one person in particular. My apologies for not clarifying earlier. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 71.146.130.253 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Strike duplicated comment from proposer. Rockpocket 06:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not duplicate my vote, this must be a copy/paste problem from another voter. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because defining notability for this would be impossible. Even envisioning the arguments as someone adds the U.S. government to this list makes squeamish. gren グレン 19:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a unwarrented fear, which is based on Ramallite's dishonest mention in his CfD -- this category states specificially it is not for states. --Ben Houston 20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per my response above. --Ben Houston 20:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although perhaps rename. CJCurrie 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per nom. --TJive 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• on balance, keep --Smerus 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is even wider than Category:Terrorist organisations and therefore even more open to abuse. How do you define the level of seriousness and credibility the accusation has to have? No, let's not even try to do that. Chicheley 21:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it is already covered seriously in the article it is notable. This category is not striving to be only mention of such a serious accusation but rather a way of collecting together similarily accused groups. This category has the same problems associated with the category "Anti-Semitism (people)" but if one is careful about it, it can be done. --Ben Houston 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't created Category:Organizations whose articles document notable accusations of terrorism (nor should you); by the name of your category, any accusation of terrorism from any source (and of any kind) will do. Elaborate explanations on the category description page (assuming those are sufficiently limiting) don't change the fact that the category name is without qualification. No one has to see the category description page before they can add the category tag to further articles, and no one will see it when they're simply reading an article and see the unannotated category tag applied to it. Postdlf 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the assumption that to get into Wikipedia is should be meet WP:Notability criteria. --Ben Houston 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article subjects have to be notable. Whether a fact is significant enough to a subject to merit documentation in its article is another issue. A further issue is whether a fact is only significant and meaningful when it is explained, such that it makes for a poor categorization scheme. Postdlf 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe and I talked about this category before creation -- I suggested it here on his talk page [4] and he said he would support it in this edit [5]. He has now changed his mind. --Ben Houston 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, you already tried to accuse me being a hypocrite because I stopped supporting "your" category. I agreed with your propositions because I thought you would only use it in very limited circumstances, at the time I agreed with you I did not understand your reasons for creating the category, the category has become meaningless considering the fact you could use it for almost any other controversial organization from the American government to Islamism, I would never have supported you if I understood your actual intentions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about my "intentions." Your claims of my base motive started when I began moving organizations out of the Category:Terrorism proper category into the specific Category:Organizations accused of terrorism -- I didn't introduce anything as you imply above -- I thought I was clarifying a muddled category. --Ben Houston 01:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the fact then why did you add the category to so many articles that were in not in any of the original categories? It was rather obvious that we were talking about the categories in a very specific context, and then you created the cats with criteria so generalized that they could be applied to just about any controversial organization, furthermore the fact that you primarily seemed concerned with adding it to organizations that you have expressed such obvious dislike of leads me to believe that your motives are not entirely pure and that my suspicious were not unfounded.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify which articles I added to the cat which were not directly within the terrorism cat or within a subcat of the terrorism cat? I believe your main concern are these two articles: Lehi (group), and Irgun. But if you actually look at my edits, I started with applying the new category to existing subcategories of Terrorism -- first the IRA cat (see [6]) and then to the Category:Militant_Zionist_groups (see [7].) But I decided against applying it on a global category basis to the Militant Zionist groups cat (see [8] - a revert) and instead decided to apply it on a more accurate article-by-article basis within the category (as explained in that previous edit) -- which ended up with me apply it to Lehi and Irgun. I did apply the cat to around 41 articles, mostly Palestinian, some IRA, some Islamist, some Tamali and some European. Your claims against me would be much stronger if you could show the evidence -- I would also like to see it. --Ben Houston 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mere accusations come cheap and so are easily and frequently made, making "accused of" an insubstantial and vague basis for a category. Postdlf 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If notable governmental or law enforcement bodies are doing the accusing (and such is prominently mentioned in a corresponding article) then this category would make sense much in the same way that Category:Terrorists or Category:Terrorism makes sense, no? Netscott 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Currently only articles included are those that list verifiable and notable accusations per the title of the category. That these be grouped in a cat appears entirely appropriate. Rockpocket 06:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Designated terrorist organizations is a good substitute category, preferrably to be sub-cated on basis on listings (US list of terrorist groups, EU list, etc.). 'Terrorism' is a widely used accusation in politics, especially in 3rd world countries. One could for example name the accusations levelled against FMLN on having links with Al-Qaida (a rumour that surged in 2004, naturally without any reasonable basis) or accusations in India from the Hindu nationalist rightwing that the leftwing was guilty of 'cultural terrorism'. (an accusation that also surged around 2004). --Soman 07:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delpernom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. -- Szvest 09:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]
• Qualified Keep -- This is a valid category though it is open to abuse. However, there are reputable organizations that have developed lists of such terror groups. Furthermore this is a subject of keen interest. If specific criteria for inclusion on this list can be established (and I think that they can be) this should be kept.--Anon 64 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Even if this were to survive I can't see how agreement would be reached on what to keep in it and I suspect it was just cause edit wars as it was added and removed from articles. (unsigned comment by User:MarkS)
• Delete POV magnet. Raphael1 13:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone can make an accusation. Osomec 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified delete: another acceptable approach would be that this is strictly a container category: no organizations go directly in this category, but it might be a useful supercategory for the categories of who has been accused of terrorism by (for example) the U.S. State Department, the EU, the government of Cuba, the erstwhile government of the Soviet Union, etc. However, Soman's suggestion may be a better way to do this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or split per Jmabel. I made a similar suggestion on the recent CfD for Category:Designated terrorist organizations. heqs 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified Delete. Those organizations on national and international lists can go into the Category:Designated terrorist organizations. Intangible 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as POV magnet. Category useful only to people with an agenda. KleenupKrew 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I strongly disagree that the title shows a biased POV. On the contrary, characterizing organizations as terrorist organizations, or as having links to terrorism, as established fact, when it is the subject of controversy, is what would show a biased POV.
  • Case in Point -- there is an organization, Tabligh Jamaat, that the United States Intelligence Establishment states, variously, as a terrorist organization, or an organization with ties to terrorism, or an organization that terrorist have used as cover.
    • Dozens of the Guantanamo detainees remain in detention, in part, because they are alleged to have ties to the Tabligh Jamaat.
    • I added a short section to that article touching on the US allegations -- it is regularly reverted -- even though it is the only section of the article that is referenced. The wikipedia contributors who are admirers of the group don't want the US allegations to be mentioned at all. The point out that the USA has made no attempt to explain the reasoning behind the allegations. They state that the allegations aren't credible.
    • My position is that the allegations deserve a place in the wikipedia, if it is to be comprehensive, because the allegations are important because they guide US policy. I argue that it is not the place of wikipedia contributors to decide for readers whether allegations are credible. I argue that wikipedia contributors should provide an NPOV presentation of all the important sides of a controversy, such as there are, and let the readers make up their own mind.
  • If the wikipedia is going to continue to present an NPOV then it is essential that articles not take sides over whether organizations are terrorist when that issue is the subject of controversy.-- Geo Swan 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename to Category:Computer and video game clichés. gren グレン 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and Video Game Clichés to Category:Computer and video game clichés[edit]

Per other CVG categories. Thunderbrand 16:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Osomec 17:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism. the wub "?!" 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless POV, and in most cases a bad violation of WP:LIVING. Also problematic to lump plagiarism with outright falsehood. 24.136.38.121 16:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is reasonable to have a category for those responsible for Journalism scandals. Perhaps it can be renamed or the criteria could be tightened? -Will Beback 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good, I think - fraud is a very specific allegation, and it doesn't encompass both plagiarism and fabrication well. 24.136.38.121 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rename I agree with the idea of renaming it. It is an area of interest to ethics instructors and journalism students. --Anon 64 12:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category Journalists accused of fabrication or plagiarism. If the category gets too big, it can be split. Useful if NPOV and based on cited accusations. -- Samuel Wantman 06:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per SamuelWantman. David Kernow 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 17:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newly created category with only one entry, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. This is POV, especially considering the highly controversial nature of the Yukos case and when Khodorkovsky alone is listed - the category could equally be named "Russian victims of political repression". Also, I doubt the value of categories linking crimes with specific nationalities and/or races. Would Wikipedia approve of categories entitled e.g. "Black drug addicts" or "Mexican car thieves"? Really Spooky 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was in category:Tax evaders before and he meets the definition there: "People who have been convicted of tax evasion." It is more neutral to follow court verdicts than not to, even if they may have resulted from abuse of power. If you look you through the categories of criminals and subgroups of criminals by nationality will find that the number of them is in three figures and we even have Category:Jewish-American mobsters. Criminals should be fully subdivided by nationality like other people caegories. Osomec 17:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in time there will probably be others. It is normal to have country specific subcats for these types of things. While it can be seen as POV for now -- but a category is pretty minor -- in the long it is nothing. --Ben Houston 20:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this category and he is the only person in Category:Russian tax evaders because there was only one Russian in Category:Tax evaders, which I cleared in full. The accusation that I created it out of bias is speculative and completely false. I am actually very strongly opposed to Putin. Chicheley 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended to Chicheley; my concern had less to do with his motives than the resulting impression the category creates in context. Now that I see the history of how it arose, I think this identifies two wider issues:

1. Whilst acknowledging Osomec’s observation that people categories are generally subdivided by nationality on Wikipedia, how useful or appropriate are such categorisations in the specific context of criminal behaviour?

The same considerations apply as in any other area. Firstly cross categories allow articles to filter through the system until they reach a place where they are under all the relevant main categories. Eg an American lawyer should be under Category:American people, Category:Lawyers and category United States law, but experience shows that vast numbers of editors wouldn't think to put in in all those places. Secondly, if they did think of it, but used those parent categories rather than sub-categories thereof, the higher level categories would be excessively large. The same applies to a bio of an American murderer, which should be accessable through Category:Murderers, Category:American people and Category:Crime in the United States. Having a category called category:American murderers greatly improves the chances that it will be. Osomec 17:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Perhaps more importantly, given the fact that the criminal justice system is in fact frequently abused in many countries, is it really “more neutral to follow court verdicts than not to”? I suggest it would be be more neutral to label people as criminals only where there is no real controversy as to their guilt. I have in mind in particular the guidance at WP:WTA Really Spooky 00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. heqs 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Convicted Russian tax evaders, such a case can be made for its parent category too. Intangible 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Intangible or Delete, because way too many Russians still evade or have evaded taxes in the past (I am Russian and I know what I'm talking about). KNewman 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category formerly contained species of genus poeciliidae, I've already created a new category Category:poeciliidae and added category tags to all the relevant articles.

Since that I've added category tags to relevant articles so that the category:live-bearers now contains all live bearing fish. (Note the term 'live bearers' can be used either for the genus poeciliidae or for ovoviviparous fish in general)

I would like to change the name of this category to the exact term 'Ovoviviparous fish' to prevent any further confusion. All articles currently tagged with "category:live-bearer" should have that tag replaced with "category:Ovoviviparous fish". The category:live-bearers could then be deleted or possibly disambiguated. Thank you.HappyVR 16:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC) HappyVR 16:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Livebearing fish are not synonymous with ovoviviparous fish. While it is true most of the poecilids are ovoviviparous, all of the goodeids and anablepids, and at least some of the halfbeaks and poecilids, are viviparous. Even the ovoviviparous poecilids are only partially ovoviviparous, with at least some nutrition (across the pericardinal sac) from the mother supplementing the yolk. Neale Monks 13:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to move the species you know about to the Category:Ovoviviparous fish or Category:viviparous fish placing the ones that 'fall in between into Category:live-bearing fish - which has the other two as subcategories - I appreciate your point about the Poeciliidae but I have included other families in the [[:Category:live-bearing fish]. In general this leaves the category:live-bearers redundant since it is replaced by category:poeciliidae (90%+ categories - use the scientific name not a common name - which in this case is slightly confusing - is it poeciliidae or live bearing fish?). I hope that will convince you to help.HappyVR 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the categories using the info. User:Neale Monks provide - no need for renaming now. Sorry for wasting time.HappyVR 21:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Austrian Social Scientists in Exile 1933-1945 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Austrian Social Scientists in Exile 1933-1945 is an article, but one that should probably be deleted. Osomec 17:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the very least rename the category to "in exile". The corresponding article may violate WP:OR. Pascal.Tesson 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete The correct title should be Austrian Social Scientists in Exile 1933-1945. The article with that title should not be deleted, though it wouldn't hurt to expand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grant Park (talk • contribs) .
  • Do you mean don't delete the category, or just not the article? Deleting the category won't get rid of the article. Could you explain why a category is appropriate? Postdlf 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former was created in April, but "Singaporean people" is the standard form and the category already existed. The subcategories use "Singaporean". Chicheley 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as above. Chicheley 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge to standard form. Osomec 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'lovers' is redundant, thus contrary to WP style. E.g., we don't have 'Artistic painters', or 'Musical instrumentalists', but 'Artists' and 'Musicians'. Rename. Smerus 13:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the category is inherently POV and therefore should be deleted. However, if not deleted, certainly "lovers" is POV and therefore rename. --Nlu (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nlu or second choice rename per nom. Chicheley 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I second the suggestion to rename, it is a reasonable proposal. The notions to "delete" are about as reasonable as deleting "Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people". Haiduc 14:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why the category is POV is that it includes lots of people who never self-identified as pederasts. That's not the case with LGBT. --Nlu (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
    • Some LGBT counterexamples to your argument: Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès, Newton Arvin, John Wayne Gacy, Francis of Spain, Lord Alfred Douglas. . . Did the apostles self-identify as Christians? All sorts of labels are affixed after the fact, that does not erode their value. Haiduc 15:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to me to be a good point. The LBGT category is headed: 'This category is a partial listing of notable gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity, or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians or popular culture.' I suggest that the renamed Pederasts category should have a similar heading and that names which do not conform to it (if any) should be removed.--Smerus 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See response to Nlu. Haiduc 15:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I fail completely to see how it is POV. BoojiBoy 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I am not opposed to the renaming of this category, I should point out that it includes both men and youths involved in pederastic relationships with each other. Are we, by renaming it, opening the door to those who, for reasons of their own, will want to obscure this information by removing the youths from the category, claiming that while the men may have been pederasts the boys are not?! Will Rimbaud be erased, even while Verlaine remains? Should we not rather opt for a title that ensures that both partners will continue to be represented together in a single category? Haiduc 17:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The current form casts a benign glow over the relationship from both points of view, which is especially inappropriate for the abused boys. Osomec 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that it is appropriate to project modern attitudes on historical personages. Haiduc 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. gren グレン 19:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 07:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the category is inherently POV and therefore should be deleted. However, if not deleted, certainly "lovers" is POV and therefore rename. Support per Nlu. --DrBat 12:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Species described in the 21st century. Conscious 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category's current scope if "new animal species described since 2000". They're not "new", of course, they're just newly described, and we ought to do the same with plants, fungi, etc, although each kingdom could be a separate subcategory. A rename is proposed to Category:Species new to science described in the 21st Century SP-KP 11:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the name as "New [animal species]" rather than "[New animal] species" – anyone else?  Regards, David Kernow 15:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just as bad, isn't it? New [animal species] are groups of animals that have just reached the required degree of reproductive isolation/genetic divergence/<insert favourite criterion for regarding a population as a species here>. The taxa in this category could have diverged from their closest relative hundreds of thousands of years ago - it's their recognition by us that's new. SP-KP 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Animals recently taxonomified"...? – if there is such a word...  David 16:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Recently-described animal species or Category:Recently-identified animal species. David Kernow 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC), amended per below 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC), removed in favo/ur of below 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per David Kernow's suggestion. Much snappier. --Richhoncho 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I think SP-KP's option is too long, but David Kernow's option is also problematic. Actually tracking the discovery by professionals is very difficult and determining the date of discovery by locals is virtually impossible. The date of formal description is really what should be used here. How about Category:Animal species described in the 21st century or even Category:Animals described in the 21st century? --Aranae 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on the two new suggestions once I've given them more thought, but ... why just animals? SP-KP 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've amended my suggestion above per Aranae's observation that "[t]he date of formal description is really what should be used here"; agreed. Perhaps "identified" rather than "described" is also a possibility...?  Re "why just animals?", there could be Category:Recently-[described/identified] insect species, Category:Recently-[described/identified] fungi species, etc...  Thanks for your input, David 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Recently-described" is indeed better than "New" - that's good progress (see also separate reply below). Not so sure about "identified" (the gull which swooped down in front of my car to pick up some food off the road this evening, and which I recognised as an adult Lesser Black-backed Gull, could be termed a recently identified animal species .... ). You're right about extending this to fungi etc - in asking "Why just animals" my intention really was just to point out that whatever we choose, it ought to work for these groups too - if we can arrive at a consensus name, let's just double-check it works for all taxa. SP-KP 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename per nom, or anything more concise that categorizes by when the species was discovered or described. "Recent" is a poor category criterion. Postdlf 05:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if anything more concise but also more specific datewise is possible; suggestions welcome. A note at the top of the category page could clarify the meaning of "recently". Regards, David Kernow 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that could work. Lots of other categories have somewhat woolly names which are then explained / "criterified" in notes on the category page e.g. Category:Controversial birds. At some point in the future, we'll have to think about changing the threshold date (in 2100AD, could we justifiably call Calayan Rail recently described? But personally I can live with postponing that problem for now. SP-KP 22:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Aranae (not sure which of the two, but there's some good thinking going on there) TheGrappler 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If Aranae's approach gains consensus, how about Category:Species described in the 21st century...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that we will need to do some splitting. Even now, that's a huge category. I suspect "animal species" is already prohibitively large and will need to be split into insects, mammals, birds, and perhaps even further. This will be particularly true a decade from now. --Aranae 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support rename to Category:Species described in the 21st century. Dividing by century is really the best solution. With subcategories of course, as needed... Postdlf 06:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Species described in the 21st century and create "Insect species described in...", "Mammalian species...", "Bird species..." etc etc subcategories, then subsubcategories, per Aranae et al above. Thanks for input, David Kernow 14:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Category:Species described in the 21st century. SP-KP 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to Category:Species described in the 21st century along with subcategories. --Aranae 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is meaningless, A single is a promotional item. It also opens the door for every free CD given out at a gig to every single released (in the US there are no artist royalties for radio play because it is considered "promotional"). Maybe some of the songs linked here should also be considered for deletion. --Richhoncho 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Every dance track (at least) has one of these these days. Way too hard to figure out what goes in here.-- Mike Selinker 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mike Selinker Osomec 17:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 01:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --M@rēino 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category only has 2 subcategories which don't need this category to connect them, and 1 article which is doesn't need this category. --Samuel Wantman 08:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could sware I tagged this! Now it is -- Samuel Wantman 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As below with Amos and Amuro, more was easily found. (Samuel, you'll need to tag these categories for deletion.)--Mike Selinker 12:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per NOM. It doesn't create a "category" only an "association" which is already in place via wikilinks. As such this kind of category provide nothing new. There are many categories Todd Rundgren should be in, but not his own. --Richhoncho 15:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do need to keep the number of personal categories under control and having looked at the article I don't think he is prominent enough to have one. Osomec 17:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great artist but its not a category.--Anon 64 12:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With four articles and two subcategories, this is a perfectly reasonable example of an eponymous category. - EurekaLott 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point to having an eponymous category if there is a small number of articles that are all prominently linked to the eponymous article (such as this case). Turning every article into a category by putting all the links into a category makes the category system less useful. The point of categories is to help people browse through topics and find articles that they would not have easily found by looking at an article. If there is a small number, it would be better to have a "see also" section than a category. We also need to consider what happens when every person gets their own category and if this is something that is desirable or needed. -- Samuel Wantman 19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per EurekaLott. Samuel Wantman raises a good point, but it should be discussed generally for all categories, not imposed ad hoc. --M@rēino 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This HAS been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. However, I believe that guidelines at Wikipedia are more descriptive than they are proscriptive. So it is actually on THIS PAGE where policy gets decided. If you think I raise a good point, you should support this CFD, then it adds to the precedent for removing eponymous categories that are not needed. I would like to add the policy to the categorization page. It would say:

"If there are few articles in a category, a category is probably not needed. A test for this is to see if all the articles that would go in the category are already linked to the eponymous article and also see if all the articles link back to the eponymous article. If not, could a short "see also" section be added to link all the articles. If the answer is "yes", than a category may not be needed. Adding a category should add some usefulness that is not already available. Likewise, a category may not be useful if it only contains a few subcategories and each subcategory is already part of another hierarchy of categories. " -- Samuel Wantman 06:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems to be an appropriate use of a category. JIP | Talk 09:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category only has the eponymous article as a member. -- Samuel Wantman 08:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. But this can go, as there's nothing else that belongs here.--Mike Selinker 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless viable population found. David Kernow 16:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous item. Osomec 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category just has 2 subcategories which don't need this category to connect them and images which should not be categorized. -- Samuel Wantman 08:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Similar to Amos, I found a number of articles that deserved being in this category. I agree that the images have to be purged from here, though, and really, what's up with the all-caps on these Japanese song and album categories (e.g., ALL FOR YOU)? At some point it might be worth lowercasing all of these articles, unless there's a compelling reason that they need to be shouting.--Mike Selinker 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take out the images, and there is nothing here that is different from virtually every recording artist. They don't all need categories, very few do. There should be a good reason to make these categories. For recording artists like Category:The Beatles it makes sense because of the quantity of related articles and subcategories, for Namie Amuro I don't think so. -- Samuel Wantman 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I listed the concern about all-caps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#J-pop songs, if anyone wants to weigh in. At least one user disagrees with me.--Mike Selinker 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These eponymous categories just have 1 or 2 subcategories which are categorized elsewhere. --Samuel Wantman 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least the Amos category. I fleshed out the category with several new articles in just a couple minutes. I find these eponymous categories are usually easy to do this with. (I couldn't find anything for Verrocchio, though.)--Mike Selinker 11:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I really can't see the value in (some of) these artist categories - in the case of Tori Amos, there are links to each article (to and from) Tori Amos. It's merely a repetition of the wikilinks. Some of the other "albums of xxx" only have one entry and are obviously already linked! --Richhoncho 12:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The value to some of us is to group all articles about the same person. I think of it this way: The Tori Amos category contains 26 articles--10 under the songs subcategory, 10 under the album subcategory, 2 under the video subcategory, and 4 under itself. All those articles have a common thread: Tori Amos. With musicians this is particularly useful because most musicians will have several "work" subcategories (so, say, if you deleted all eponymous categories, you would still need category:Tori Amos works). It's less clear about, say, painters, when the only subcategory is the paintings category. In that case (such as with Verrocchio) it's not very useful to have an eponymous category. That's my take on it, anyway.--Mike Selinker 16:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Tori Amos category per Mike Selinker. Delete the Andrea del Verrocchio category. - EurekaLott 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Amos per Mike Silnker, delete del Verrocchio.--M@rēino 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eponymous category has just 1 entry besides the eponymous article. Pointless. -- Samuel Wantman 07:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nowhere near enough prominence or content. Osomec 17:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted G4 by pschemp (talk · contribs) --William Allen Simpson 07:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriately named and not used user-categorization scheme. 132.205.44.134 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE 132.205.44.134 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. --Smerus 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Osomec 17:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. --Moreau36 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - was created by the category creating vandal. Should not have been recreated. pschemp | talk 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:LGBT characters in comics. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This easily survived a recent deletion vote, but a few of us wanted this rename to match the parent category:Comics characters, and to allow characters from comic strips like Akbar and Jeff. This is not a reopening of the deletion vote.--Mike Selinker 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Characters in LGBT comics...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not accurate, because Northstar (the character) is gay, but Alpha Flight (the comic) isn't.--Mike Selinker 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duh... of course. Sorry for stoopid suggestion!  Okay, Category:LGBT characters in comics to avoid double plural...?  David 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's okay with me.--Mike Selinker 21:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to LGBT characters in comics. It's the clearest designation yet. --Perceive 22:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:LGBT characters in comics per above. David Kernow 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:LGBT characters in comics as per the above comments. Breakaway 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to what David said. Lady Aleena @ 06:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. --InShaneee 00:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Neo-Western films. Conscious 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am nominating this category for deletion per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I could find only one study (book-length) on its related term (Revisioning Film Traditions – the Pseudo-Documentary and the Neo-western, ISBN 0-7734-7649-0). Jonathan F 01:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category naming might run afoul of WP:NEO, although I notice usages of the term already on Wikipedia. Problematically, neo-western (or neo-Western) seems to be used interchangeably with revisionist Western in general. In any case, for this category to survive, it would have to be renamed Category:Neo-western films or Category:Neo-Western films as neo-Western is used unrelatedly in geopolitical discussion. Jonathan F 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:Neo-Western films per Jonathan F. David Kernow 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:Alternate history westerns or something similar to that, but not neo-western. If one looks at the meaning of "neo" then one would see that "neo" means "new," so New westerns? Doesn't make sense to me. -Lady Aleena @ 06:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Alternate history westerns wouldn't be right, as the films in the category do not offer a different take on history; rather, they are thought to have the virtues of westerns, only they take place in modern settings (or outside the American West). Also, "neo" appears to be used in the same sense as in neo-noir. --Jonathan F 07:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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