Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 22 October 24 >

October 23[edit]

Prince categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. NW (Talk) 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and match parent article, Prince (musician). The subcategories of Category:Prince would just fall under speedy renaming criteria number six to match the disambiguated parent, so might as well group them as well. — ξxplicit 23:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Philosophical articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Philosophical articles to Category:Philosophy essays
Nominator's rationale: Merge - Can't see any use in having two categories for what is essentially the same thing, nor do I see how editors can make a consistent choice between what is an article and what an essay. Declan Clam (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. Looking at the category contents, I can see no rationale for keeping both. AllyD (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No really substantial distinction. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Locomotives of the United States categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep - Feel free to renominate for a reverse merge. I'll leave the tags in place. - jc37 10:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electric locomotives of the United States[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Electric locomotives of the United States to Category:American electric locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form used for all other categories in Category:Electric locomotives by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal rename everything in the countries category to Electric locomotives of X form instead. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP categorises USA categories as in the present form. "American" refers to the whole of North and South America. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per rationale explained in the proposal below. Debresser (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative proposal to rename everything in the countries category to Electric locomotives of X form instead. Otherwise it looks like you may be referring to American Electric rather than American locomotives. Cjc13 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Reasons why are listed in my request to change all others to Electric locomotives of Foo which is ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24#Locomotives of Foo. Iain Bell (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Steam locomotives of the United States[edit]
Propose renaming Category:Steam locomotives of the United States to Category:American steam locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the prevailing form used in the parent Category:Steam locomotives by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate proposal rename everything in the countries category to Steam locomotives of X form instead. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP categorises USA categories as in the present form. "American" refers to the whole of North and South America. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. The objection of Peterkingiron is factually incorrect. We do in many cases categorise US categories this way. In fact, everwhere where we use the adjective, as in this parent category, as explained by nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative proposal to rename everything in the countries category to Steam locomotives of X form instead. Otherwise it looks like you may be referring to American steam rather than American locomotives. Cjc13 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Reasons why are listed in my request to change all others to Steam locomotives of Foo which is ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24#Locomotives of Foo. Iain Bell (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirects from Korean words/names[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Redirects from Korean words/names to Category:Redirects from Korean language terms. --Xdamrtalk 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Redirects from Korean words/names to Category:Redirects from Korean words and names
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To remove the slash. Alternatively: Category:Redirects from Korean terms. Also, insert "language" after Korean. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diesel locomotives of Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diesel locomotives of Ireland to Category:Irish diesel locomotives
Category:Steam locomotives of Ireland to Category:Irish steam locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form of like categories in Category:Diesel locomotives by country and Category:Steam locomotives by country. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal to rename everything in the countries category to Diesel locomotives of X form instead. Otherwise it looks like you may be referring to Irish Diesel rather than Irish locomotives. Cjc13 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This is a supra-national category since for historical reasons railways are categorised of Great Britain / of Ireland rather than of the United Kingdom / of the Republic of Ireland. Further reasons why are listed in my request to change all others to Diesel locomotives of Foo and Steam locomotives of Foo which is ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24#Locomotives of Foo. Iain Bell (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this form is better than "Irish" Instead rename all the other categories to become "Diesel locomotives of X" 70.29.209.91 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the parent category is a 'country' category, not a 'nationality' category; nationality cats are supposed to be reserved for people and culture. which locomotives are not. Rename all other subcats to match this one. Hmains (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colonial architecture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Category has been retained, but its scope has been changed per discussion. Orlady (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Colonial architecture to Category:American colonial architecture
Nominator's rationale: This category deals with an architectural style (actually, several styles referred to under the same rubric) specific to the United States. The proposed new name is the name of the article about this architectural style (American Colonial architecture). Geographic disambiguation is appropriate because some other countries have some other architectural style (or collection of styles) called "colonial" that is specific to the country. The name "Colonial architecture in the United States" (compare Category:Renaissance Revival architecture in the United States) has been suggested, but because this is a category for an architectural style specific to the country and not for U.S. examples of an architectural style found in many regions, I believe that the name I am proposing is the correct one. Orlady (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility. There is colonial architecture in many countries other than the U.S. Even the U.S. has more than one kind of colonial architecture: Dutch in the New York, Spanish in Florida (not much remaining, though) and in the Southwest, Russian in Alaska, etc. The article on Dutch Colonial architecture says it was an American style, but the Dutch colonized in the West Indies and the East Indies also. Perhaps what we call American colonial architecture is really British colonial architecture in the United States. clariosophic (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of speculating, I'd prefer to rely on sources for terminology. --Orlady (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speculating or not, it is clear that there are several distinct types of colonial architecture in the US, from various different origins. As such, perhaps Category:Colonial architecture in the United States would be a better hold-all category, into which Category:American colonial architecture (which is wide enough a term to be considered a distinct style in its own right) can be added as a subcategory, along with articles like Dutch Colonial architecture. Something definitely needs to be done with the current name, though - although I would suggest it be left as an overall parent for articles/categories on colonial architecture in the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. My chief concern is that the title "Colonial architecture" should not be reserved for US-specific topics. I like the idea of keeping "Colonial architecture" as an umbrella category, but I have been trying to figure out what else would fit in it. I don't find a lot to put in the category other than the topics currently in "American colonial." Spanish Colonial architecture is the only other article I've found that clearly would fit there, but that may be enough to get started... Chilotan architecture might also belong. French Colonial also belongs there as a topic, because the style is not specific to the United States, but the article as currently written is US-specific. Queenslander (architecture) is the destination of a redirect that suggests the style is called "colonial," but the term is not in the article. The topic of non-US colonial architecture also appears in article sections such as Indonesian architecture#Colonial architecture, Architecture of Mexico#Colonial Architecture, and Architecture of the Philippines#Colonial Spanish, but I have not yet identified whole articles about these topic that would belong in a "Colonial architecture" category. "Venetian colonial architecture" may be another style (dating from much earlier than American colonial) that might someday have an article, but it doesn't exist yet. --Orlady (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not up to the task of writing such an article myself, there is a distinct, specific New Zealand colonial architecture style (houses likke the one shown at File:Baldwinstreet.jpg are known as "colonial villas", for instance). Grutness...wha? 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mistake, see below. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my move was a mistake. My investigation showed that the article had been created in 2005 as "American colonial architecture" and was moved without discussion on 17 September by a user who had no other involvement with the article (for example, he did not change the case within the article to match the new name), and who has an extensive record of renaming articles without discussion. Google searches indicate to me that many authors use the lower case when discussing American colonial styles. However, the much later Colonial Revival style (what many Americans are actually talking about when they refer to "colonial architecture" is usually rendered in uppercase, as a proper noun. I restored the original version of the article name, which is supported by many sources. --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC) PS - There are some sources who render "American Colonial" as a proper noun, but I think they are a minority, particularly when I discount those that also render "architecture" as a proper noun (as in "American Colonial Architecture"). --Orlady (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there is a subtle distinction between "American colonial architecture", the architecture produced in America in the colonial period, and "American Colonial architecture" a style supposed to follow or typify the former (see this search). Looking at the article, I see it is an actual history of building produced during the period, rather than about the style, so "c" is ok. This is much less the case for the category, which includes many post-colonial buildings & subjects. So I still think the category should keep the "C", as covering the wider subject. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing good information on colonial architecture around the world. I will happily withdraw the request for a name change -- instead, let's move the US topics to a new US-specific category and populate the current category in accordance with your suggestions.
Ok, or if this goes through as is the new category could just be created - saves moving the articles. I don't mind. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the articles have to be moved. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my page move, see the note above. Regarding Dutch Colonial architecture, the current article is exclusively about Dutch Colonial style in the U.S. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - that's why the title is wrong. Dutch Colonial architecture should cover Cape Dutch architecture (South Africa), & architecture of the Dutch East Indies, as well of course that of their American colonies. "Dutch Colonial", as apparently only a US term, is ok as a title for the US style without further disaming. I know we don't have a proper global article, but a stub with links could be set up at least. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the broader topic could be called "Colonial architecture of the Dutch Empire" and the current article "Dutch Colonial architecture" (about a U.S.-specific style) should be renamed to "Dutch Colonial architecture in the United States" or "Dutch Colonial architecture (United States)? Searching Google (from a U.S. IP) for "dutch colonial architecture", most of the non-U.S. hits are to pages of tourist photos, such as this flickr page form Java, that use the generic term "Dutch colonial" rather than the specific term "Dutch Colonial." Note that there is a very limited discussion of the general topic at Dutch Empire#Architecture. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work, & is clearer. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing the nomination. I have altered the category scope to make it a category for colonial architecture in general. --Orlady (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Special elections to the 111th Congress[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Special elections to the 111th Congress to Category:Special elections to the 111th United States Congress
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency by adding "United States" also to avoid potential confusion with other nations. —Markles 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Antisemitic propaganda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξxplicit 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antisemitic propaganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category fails to meet the guidance of NPOV, OR and CAT for the same reasons given for the deletion of category:Anti-gay propaganda detailed at CFD. For consistency the same rationale should be applied here unless a clear consensus between the validity of classifications of "anti-semitic" and "anti-gay" propaganda can be reached. In particular the closing rationale given by Xdamr should be noted - "The fact that the term 'propaganda' can have loaded overtones is established and I am satisfied that this creates the possibility of violations of NPOV, OR, and (if applied to individuals) BLP. Furthermore, the category lacks any objective criteria, either implicit or explicit, for population - categories which rely solely on an appeal to RS are not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of CAT." Ash (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is fair to call trying to achieve consistency in the propaganda categories 'disrupting Wikipedia', unless you mean something else when you refer to POINT. This was also discussed in advance with Xdamr who raised no objection. An assumption of good faith would be a refreshing change.—Ash (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said that there was a "whiff" of it, not that you were actually being disruptive. Anyway, so what you're saying is that you're opinions on the word "propaganda" have changed 180 degrees since the last discussion? Or you just think since one category was deleted, so should the other one? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree I am not being disruptive. As for what I said, please read the nomination above rather than speculating about what I might think or what motivations I might have. If you have an opinion on the CFD I suggest you give it.—Ash (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm trying to figure out what the nominator thinks; i.e. what is the full rationale for deletion—because that necessarily affects my opinion of the nomination. Have your opinions changed since the last discussion? Or is this just a tit-for-tat nomination? If I rely solely upon the nominating statement, I would conclude the latter. I'm giving you a chance to expand on that if you wish to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be accusing me of tit-for-tat nominations and continue to speculate about me rather than having anything specific to say about this category. Please stop.
I shall again assume good faith and pick up on the question of detail. The reason the nomination refers to the closing statement for the deletion of Anti-gay propaganda was that the rationale for deleting it was entirely on the basis of it being a classification of propaganda by interest (nothing to do with being a gay related category) and the conclusion was that all similar categories should be deleted for the same reasons. Here is the text reproduced; I was trying to avoid duplicating here but unfortunately seems to be necessary:
Random dictionary definition ([1]):
propaganda noun 1 a the organized circulation by a political group, etc of doctrine, information, misinformation, rumour or opinion, intended to influence public feeling, raise public awareness, bring about reform, etc; b the material circulated in this way.
With a definition established, the key issue of dispute is apparent. As a term, 'propaganda' has two distinct sides to its definition; the relatively neutral (doctrine or information) and the decidedly not neutral (misinformation or rumour). This is at the heart of the delete view - labelling views as 'misinformation' or 'rumour' through categorisation would be a violation WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Even if the application of this category was only intended in the sense of 'information' or 'doctrine', can this term ever escape its loaded connotations?
The keep argument seems to centre largely around the merits of proper sourcing. Provided WP:RS can be satisfied then there is no reason that the category cannot be applied. This is proof against any concerns of NPOV - if a source which is reputable has called something propaganda, then the question of a POV or not does not arise - the source is reputable and its opinion respectable. This works for articles, why not for categories as well? Two clear strands of thought in collision - which is to be preferred?
To come to a proper conclusion, we have to consider the essential nature of categories. According to WP:CAT, categories ought to "...be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects". In other words, from the very outset, there is an implication that an article's categorisations are objective and factual, free from controversy or doubt. As WP:CAT goes on to say, "Categories appear without annotations or referencing, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate".
The question is, while WP:RS is applicable to the question of whether an article ought to be added to a category, how does it impact on the creation/retention of categories of controversial name or scope? After considering the arguments I am persuaded that it does not. The fact that the term 'propaganda' can have loaded overtones is established and I am satisfied that this creates the possibility of violations of NPOV, OR, and (if applied to individuals) BLP. Furthermore, the category lacks any objective criteria, either implicit or explicit, for population - categories which rely solely on an appeal to WP:RS are not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of WP:CAT. I am satisfied that policy beats guideline, that as a result this category should be Deleted, as indeed should all similar categories in Category:Propaganda by interest.
If you have any further questions please expect at least 24 hours before I respond.—Ash (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fundamental differences between calling something "anti-gay propaganda" and "antisemitic propaganda" have not been addressed by the nominator in the nomination. Just because "anti-gay propaganda" is inappropriate doesn't necessarily mean that "antisemitic propaganda" is also. No argument has been presented that would demonstrate otherwise, except for an assumption that the same considerations apply; I don't think they necessarily do in these cases. Also, nomination is an inconsistent application of the all-or-none approach, since Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films is not nominated, and the nominated category is an appropriately named parent category for the films category, which will remain regardless of the results here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A sad and unfortunate category that should have died out after the Naxi era but that disturbingly persists as a defining characteristic of material published around the world. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this well established category (since 2007), and because the sub-categories alone, such as Category:Antisemitic canards (with three of its own sub-sub categories), Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films, and Category:Antisemitic publications (with three additional sub-sub categories) prove the need for this parent category. It would tear the guts out of the whole structure and is therefore a suspicious (WP:POINT or WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND?) counter-productive move. Needless to say Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Nominator is also injecting gay isssues that have no evident logical or any other connection to this category beyond emotional hysteria value in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette that have nothing to do with the reality of antisemitism which is not the same thing as being anti-gay. Being antisemitic is not the same things as being "anti" other things as proper logic and knowledge would teach. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you mis-read the nomination? The rationale for nomination is on the same basis as the nomination for the category anti-gay propaganda, it has nothing to do with "injecting gay issues" into this category as that category was deleted for reasons that had everything to do with propaganda as a category rather than anything to do with gay as a category.—Ash (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So essentially what you're saying is that any category with "propaganda" in it would have to be deleted (or at least renamed), regardless of what the rest of the name of the category includes? There are absolutely no different considerations to be taken into account when it's described as "anti-gay propaganda" versus when it's described as "anti-semitic propaganda"? If this is your position, do you think there would be consensus for such a move, especially in light of this 2008 discussion? And when there are a number of categories that use the word "propaganda", why has this nomination only nominated one of them? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's not what the nomination states, refer to the text in the box above which explains the rationale in detail.—Ash (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, except it doesn't answer my questions. Perhaps you could set out some concise, direct answers to them so I could understand. You obviously can see the answers where I cannot. 1. Do you mean (based on the boxed text) that the only problematic ones are the categories in Category:Propaganda by interest? 2. If so, why has only one of these in this category been nominated? 3. Why are the problematic ones limited to this subcategory? 4. If this is what is meant, why are those in Category:Propaganda by interest not OK but the other ones—such as those in Category:Propaganda by medium—are OK? What is the difference, in your opinion? 5. If this particular category were deleted, what would we do with the subcategories that also use the term "propaganda"? 6. What about Category:Communist propaganda—should it be deleted too? I think these are all valid questions that haven't been addressed by the nomination or the boxed text. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply to 1. Yes.
            • Reply to 2. See User_talk:Xdamr#CFD_for_Category:Anti-gay_propaganda.
            • Reply to 3. The precedent of deleting Anti-gay propaganda and associated discussion only related to this category.
            • Reply to 4. This nomination does not imply that all other categories are okay, this falls into the realm of the classic WP:Other things exist argument. I am not interested in (or required to) nominating every similar category before nominating this one.
            • Reply to 5. They either fall under different parents or should be removed with the same rationale.
            • Reply to 6. This already has more than one parent so it would not be affected.
            • Note, please expect at least a 24 hour delay before I reply to any further of your questions.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, great, now just to follow up on #1/#3—and this is the crux of my confusion here—why are the "propaganda by-interest" ones problematic but the "propaganda by-country" ones and the "propaganda by-medium" ones not as much? I understand that the closing administrator kind of suggested in his comment to you that this was the most problematic of those that remained, but I'm not really clear on why that is. Maybe you can't answer this if you're just going on what he recommended, but I think it's worth considering. Or is the answer to this just of the nature of you said in #4—that they are equally inappropriate and should be deleted or renamed too, but you're not interested in doing them simultaneously? (No worries about delays in responding—I realise users are on WP at different times and I don't expect immediately prompt answers to inquiries. 24 hours is a completely reasonable response time—even better than most, I would say.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted for further discussion from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 8#Category:Antisemitic propaganda
  • Keep. No trace of violation of NPOV, OR, CAT. I beg you to suggest a different, proper classification for The Protocols or Der Giftpilz. Romance novels? NVO (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have a lot of respect for Xdamr's work but this isn't the first time I've disagreed with a statement in his closing comments. I would have prefered you went the route of a deletion review after you lost your case on Category:Anti-gay propaganda, rather than seeking to remove what clearly is a defining category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for this category. Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films is well documentated, and thus above the problems of OR and NPOV that might rise here. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Action on climate change[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge:
--Xdamrtalk 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Global Campaign for Climate Action to Category:Action on climate change
Suggest merging Category:Stop Climate Chaos to Category:Action on climate change
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Lists of organisations affiliated with a particular campaign have been expanded to individuals and organizations affiliated with those organisations which are affiliated with that campaign, which are unverifiable. Furthermore, in most cases, only the campaign reports its members; the individual organisations do not report their association, making the association, if contraversial, a potential WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I intentially did not include Category:Live Earth, as that one is well-defined; anything calling itself Live Earth (something) is probably affiliated with the unbrella organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Superintendents[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Superintendents to Category:American school superintendents. --Xdamrtalk 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Superintendents to Category:American school superintendents
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Superintendents" is an utterly ambiguous title. It can mean a host of different things. However, most of the people in this cat are or were American school superintendents, which is what I suspect the category was originally supposed to represent. It needs renaming, the people in it who are not American school superintendents need removing, and it should be a subcat of Category:American school administrators instead of the other way round. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or perhaps merge with the Administrators - the first one of them I looked at, Senator Michael Bennet, was a superintendant too. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging would be fine with me too. There seems to be a bit of overlap, although I'm sure not all school administrators are superintendents (not being American, I'm not entirely au fait with the terminology). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't - they have a raft of lower roles & titles, & not everywhere uses the word superintendant for the top job in any case - Superintendent (education) is the main article. But the notable ones naturally do tend to have been superintendants, often as a stepping stone to other jobs, unless notable for other reasons. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom -- and make this a subcat of Category:American school administrators, per nom. School superintendents are just one type of U.S. school administrator, so it would not be a good idea to simply merge these into the other category. --Orlady (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Athlete songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Athlete songs to Category:Athlete (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disamabiguate and to match main article Athlete (band). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and to avoid possible ambiguity. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:? & the Mysterians albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:? & the Mysterians albums to Category:Question Mark & the Mysterians albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per MOS, we should use normal English and avoid the "? &" construction. To match main article Question Mark & the Mysterians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with renaming, for reasons given. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmmm. I was gonna object to this, but I think the band has had a change of heart since the time they were popular (see their website. It seems they sometimes spell it out and sometimes don't. I'd find it hard to support changing Category:!!! albums to "chk chk chk albums," but I guess I can't object if the band spells it out these many years later.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with rename: Checking my copies of a couple of their original singles, the text-based name was at least as often used as the "?" and the text version was used in the charts. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Girls albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Girls albums to Category:Girls (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match Girls (band). Disambiguation would be helpful here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to rename but Be Bold. Since there's only one article, you could update it, create the new category and this one would be eventually speedied as empty. I don't think there'd be any controversy. Well, that's what I've done in the past. I hope that's allowed. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I could. But everytime I do something like that I get a million posts on my talk page telling me I'm an ass. For me, this is actually easier. Then if I get whinging afterwards, I can just point here and avoid being reported on ANI by the WP histrionic society. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I sympathise with you, Good Ol’factory. I also think there's some asses around here. but on quite the other side. :) Debresser (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Potential hoaxes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. BencherliteTalk 13:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Potential hoaxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Implausible, transitive category with only one member article (which has now been all but confirmed anyway, making this categorization questionable).
  • Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. Needs time to figure out its relation to Category:Hoaxes, since the latter needs to be trimmed to remove potential BLP issues. This category is designed for incidents where reliable sources indicate the likelihood of a hoax, but it has not been confirmed. Hoaxes should only be for confirmed cases. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I don't think in category space we need a half-way house like this. If something is clearly a hoax it will be categorized as such; if it is not, it will not. This is essentially like an "alleged" category, which are almost always deleted. The "need" for the category seems to have arisen out of the balloon boy case, but there is no indication that this is really needed to serve any long-term, permanent purpose. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and inappropriate category. If it turns out to be a hoax an article can be transferred to Category:Hoaxes, otherwise it's POV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically same as Necrothesp. --Dlugar (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently POV-prone category. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to Category:Hoaxes, which is also for potential hoaxes, because if it is confirmed, we delete it (or shoud do so, at least). Debresser (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP issues prevent the use of Category:Hoaxes and we do not delete hoaxes jus because they are hoaxes. If they are notable, they are worth keeping. Potential hoaxes or "Alledged Hoaxes" would be for incidents where the sources alledge a hoax but it is not confirmed.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ice hockey Farm Team/Affiliates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: originally nominated category was speedily deleted; delete Category:Pittsburgh Penguins Farm Team/Affiliates per previous discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ice hockey Farm Team/Affiliates to Category:?
Nominator's rationale: Should this be renamed to National Hockey League farm teams and affiliates? Or something else? There are some obvious capitalization and pluralization problems, but aside from that, I have no strong take on this... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I see that this recently created category is in fact based on a much older Category:Pittsburgh Penguins Farm Team/Affiliates. I've placed a tag there, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the whole category is speediable, I think, because of consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12#NHL_.22Fram.22_teams. I've placed a tag on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Expatriate footballers in Canada[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Expatriate footballers in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge and redirect to Category:Expatriate soccer players in Canada. Canadian English usage. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-free music samples by artist categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency, categories should be renamed to match parent article, Category:Non-free audio samples, and conformity with the rest of the categories in Category:Non-free music samples by artist. — ξxplicit 02:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Verdi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Verdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous category; contains only Category:Compositions by Giuseppe Verdi. (If kept, which is not my preference, rename to Category:Giuseppe Verdi.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I rather think you should be able to navigate the category tree in a logical manner. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to use his full name. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can any of the above tell me why this category is necessary for the category tree? What does it add, other than an unneeded layer of categorization? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Puccini[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Puccini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary eponymous category—contains only main article and Category:Compositions by Giacomo Puccini. (If kept, which is not my preference, rename to Category:Giacomo Puccini.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I rather think you should be able to navigate the category tree in a logical manner. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to use his full name. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Handel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξxplicit 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Handel to Category:George Frideric Handel
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. To match main article George Frideric Handel. In general, eponymous categories for people should match the name of the main article about them. There is also Category:Compositions by George Frideric Handel and 7 subcategories, all of which use the full name. I'm not really convinced this eponymous category is needed at all, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to use his full name, matching the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anglican dioceses in Canada[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 4#Category:Anglican dioceses in Canada. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anglican dioceses in Canada to Category:Anglican Church of Canada dioceses
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The ACC is not the only Anglican church in Canada. It is the largest and oldest, yes, but there are plently of disenting splinter groups. This is based on a similar proposal I made about Irish diocses in May. see that debate. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_23&oldid=1144514435"