< August 13 August 15 >

August 14

Category:Optimization

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) 01:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Optimization to Category:Mathematical optimization
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word Optimization can be used outside the context of optimizing a mathematical function. Rename will mean articles like Windows tweaking won't end up being put in the Mathematical optimization category.Delaszk (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2008 (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:Battles of Quantrill's Raid into Kansas of the American Civil War

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of Quantrill's Raid into Kansas of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Quantrill's raid currently redirects to Lawrence Massacre, which is the only article in this category; if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Massacre was the only notable raid led by Quantrill. If kept, rename to remove "of the American Civil War"; it is unnecessary due to the fact that there is no possible for confusion with another incident/campaign. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (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:Ferries in the United States

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 per nom, although "ferries vis-à-vis foo" is indeed tempting. The fact that using "of" is an accepted convention for ships in general creates a strong presumption in favour of using "of" for categories of types of ships. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ferries in the United States to Category:Ferries of the United States
Nominator's rationale: and all state subcats. I am listing this for Plasma east, who has started unilaterally changing the category names, emptying the old categories, and speedily deleting the old categories out of process and without discussion. I'd like a more experienced category editor to look into the situation, thanks. See also: User talk:Plasma east#Category:Ferries in the United States renames. P.S. only the main category has been tagged. Katr67 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also Category:Ferries in Ontario. I think that's the last one. Occuli (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I reading the last one in the nomination list incorrectly? Looks like Category:Ferries in Ontario. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it does - I had assumed they were all US. Occuli (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Reverse merge --I would have through that Category:Ferries in the United States was the better description. Where a ferry crosses a border, it is legitimate to categise it as in both states or countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2008 (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:Auto-Anti-Semitism

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Auto-Anti-Semitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The article Auto-Anti-Semitism defines it as Jewish self-hatred. As such, this category is a recreation of Category:Self-hating Jew (alleged) and Category:Self-hating Jew, which have both been deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3#Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 26#Category:Self-hating Jew. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't consider it an attack category because no living people have been put into it (yet), but it certainly has that potential. I removed Post-Zionism from the category out of WP:BLP concerns. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (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:Grand Orient de France

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 per nom. If and when the systemic bias problem is resolved, the category can be recreated, taking into consideration the problem of historical/modern. Kbdank71 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grand Orient de France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No potential for growth. After removing articles on people who weren't notable for being Freemasons (the "Freemasons" cats were CfDed, and the Grand body cats shouldn't be used in lieu of that otherwise for a number of reasons), there are only two articles in the cat, one of which could go under "Freemasonry in France" and the other in the main cat. A compound issue is that there are two Grand Orients - a historical one and a modern one that are very different from one another, both of which had articles in the cat. I removed the historical ones and left the modern ones - otherwise the cast is vague and potentially misleading. MSJapan (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful category that could be expanded when the systematic bias towards Anglo-Saxon freemasonry is overcome. This lodge is extremely important in non-UGLE freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2008 (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:Iranian fundamentalists

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. Kbdank71 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Iranian fundamentalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a dubious category. There is no universal definition who can be labeled as a fundamentalist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian thinkers and politicians can be categorized into five classes[1]:

Anti-religious intellectuals Religious intellectuals Traditionists (just a typo??) Traditionalists Fundamentalists

Whereas the actual sibling categories in Category:Iranian people by political orientation use completely different terms including: Category:Iranian conservatives & Category:Iranian religious-nationalists. The people in this cat seem to be hard-line Khomenists, as opposed to the softer religious-nationalists. To me the emphasis should be on the politics rather the religious side. Have we asked the project? Specialist advice is needed I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2008 (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:Van Morrison singles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Van Morrison songs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Van Morrison singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Van Morrison songs. No other singers seem to differentiate between singles and songs, categorywise (but if they do, let me know). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (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:Phil Spector singles

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 singles category per nom; delete albums category as duplicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phil Spector singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Phil Spector albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Misleading category name. This reads as if it's singles performed by Phil Spector, not produced by him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is both improperly named and completely duplicative of Category:Albums produced by Phil Spector. Cgingold (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a bit unorthodox, but I took the liberty of adding this other category to this section. If there are objections to that, just let me know and I will move it to its own separate section. Cgingold (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And delete Category:Phil Spector albums. Occuli (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (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:Opposition to homosexuality

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Opposition to homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Fails NPOV as well as being too general catch all category with no main article (The article Opposition to homosexuality currently redirects to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality after what appears to have been a long debate about NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (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:Homosexuality People

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 per WP:SNOW. Unanimous support for deletion, no conceivable argument for keeping. Postdlf (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Homosexuality People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: poorly-worded title; those included in this category should already be included in more specific categories, e.g sub-categories of Category:LGBT actors. An additional category is confusing and unnecessary. Rodhullandemu 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Title is grammatically poor. Papa November (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly-titled and redundant. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category title is confusing and grammatically makes no sense, but even so it duplicates, or creates potential to duplicate, information contained in existing categories Category:LGBT actors, Category:Gay actors, Category:Lesbian actors. Rossrs (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Badly worded, redundant -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all of the rationales already mentioned. User:Cooksi has outdone him/herself this time. This editor needs some mentoring on "What Wikipedia Is Not" as they have created numerous unneeded categories. MarnetteD | Talk 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated this is redundant and malformed. --Ckatzchatspy 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the snowball clause. Grammatically incorrect, and wholly redundant. --Icarus (Hi!) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (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.

Categories:Trinidad and Tobago people of Fooian descent

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/rename all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging/renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (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:Trinidadian people by ethnic or national origin

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) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Trinidadian people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people by ethnic or national origin
Nominator's rationale: as per Category:Trinidad and Tobago people etc. Mayumashu (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (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:LeToya Luckett

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LeToya Luckett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Category:LeToya albums and Category:LeToya songs already cover everything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (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.

Categories:Nicaraguans of Fooian descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (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.

Categories:Iranians of Fooian descent

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

*Category:Iranian Georgians to Category:Iranians of Georgian descent withdrawn

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, going back to what you brought up earlier, Darwinek. I d prefer however Category:Iranian Armenians and Category:Iranian Georgians to differientiate clearly between citizens (or the equivalent from earlier historic times) and expats. Mayumashu (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian Armenians would be the proper category, though most (the vast majority) of actual Iranian Armenians refer to themselves as Parskahay (meaning Persian Armenian), since the community dates back to the Persian empire. Hakob (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom Most of the Iranian Armenian community is originally from Nakhichevan and other parts of the Caucasus. They refer to themselves as Iranian/Persian Armenians and not "Iranians of Armenian religion/ethnicity." There are Armenians in Iran who belong to the Catholic and Evangelical churches but they still call themselves Iranian/Persian Armenian. Hakob (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (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.

Categories:Mozambicans of Fooian descent

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 both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2008 (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:Armenian-Lebanese people

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 to Category:Lebanese Armenians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Armenian-Lebanese people to Category:Lebanese people of Armenian descent instead to Category:Lebanese Armenians per discussion here
Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention, established recently for clarity Mayumashu (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suport renaming to Category:Armenians in Lebanon. It seems to me that Armenians regard themselves as a distinct ethnic or national group regardless of where they are -- like Jews in a certain sense. To a Jew, saying "a Russian of Jewish descent" or "a German of Jewish descent" has a distinctly offensive connotation. This is probably so for Armenians also. We will be acknowledging an important national sentiment of the Armenians by opening Category:Armenians in Lebanon, consistently with the main article Armenians in Lebanon. --Zlerman (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. How about then Category:Lebanese Armenian people or Category:Lebanese Armenians, as in Category:Lebanese Jews? (I d prefer the former for we have Category:Armenian people and not Category:Armenians.) Category:Armenians in Lebanon does not at all differeniate being citizens of Lebanon who are Armenian and citizens of Armenia who are expatriate in Lebanon. Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Lebanese Armenians" sounds good, too. - Darwinek (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most Lebanese Armenians call themselves exactly that - Lebanese Armenians (mentioned in the Armenians article). It's the same with Syrian, Persian, Russian, Turkish, etc. This does not include "newer" communities (they refer to themselves Armenian-American, Armenian-Canadian, etc). However, I think that Lebanese people of Armenian descent should be kept as a subcategory. For example, Emile Lahoud, the former president of Lebanon is partially Armenian. Lebanese politician Karim Pakradouni is Armenian on his father's side, and Lebanese Maronite on his mother's. Hakob (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2008 (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:New Orleans songs

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. Kbdank71 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:New Orleans songs to Category:Songs about New Orleans
Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed to match the other "Songs about (place name)" categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (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:Genericized trademarks

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. Kbdank71 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Genericized trademarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless without context, and prone to abuse/misuse without sourcing. A "genericized trademark" is a product brand name that became the generic name for that product, thus losing all legal force as a trademark. The two biggest problems with grouping these by category: 1) Trademark protection, and therefore genericization, is specific to a market and/or jurisdiction; for example, aspirin is generic in the U.S., but still a protected trademark in Canada. 2) Many trademarks, such as Xerox, Band-AID, or Kleenex, are commonly used as the generic term by consumers, but never by competing companies, because those brands are in fact still governmentally registered, legally protectable trademarks. We already have a List of generic and genericized trademarks, which is prone enough to unsourced additions, but categories have no references or context, and so keeping this category will just invite OR and inaccuracy. Postdlf (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (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:Latin Americans of Fooian descent

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/rename both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging/renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per recently established naming convention ('people by Fooian descent') Mayumashu (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (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:Diplomatic missions by country

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by country to Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country
Nominator's rationale: In relation to a recent CfD, there was no agreement as to what should be done to the categories/articles, so being WP:BOLD, I categorised list articles into a new category called Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country; this naming structure being chosen as it was about the only point with which some parties agreed. Whilst the terms within actual useage is receiving state, we here on WP apparently do not use the term state but rather country. The rename will go someway to recognise usage of the term in the real world; by country could include both of and in categories/articles, and inline with CfD for Category:Diplomatic missions by host country, this is the logical choice of name. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations (1961) (PDF file) - Article 3 1 (a) - Representing the sending State in the receiving State; - the terms country, nation, etc aren't used. Apparently we use country not state here on WP. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with condition (see, I'm not that obnoxious, am I Russavia). However I would agree wtih Good Ol'Factory about using the word 'state' not 'country'. The term 'country' is a more casual and less legally prescriptive term than 'state'. I would further be guided by the VCDR terminology. My support also extends to receiving and sending articles.Kransky (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, but do not know, that we use country since it is more precise. State is pretty ambiguous since it can be used in diplomacy to mean basically a country. And states are political subdivisions of several countries. I guess the decision as to which one is better here would depend on how ambiguous the use of state would be. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (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:Diplomatic missions by host country

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by host country to Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country
Nominator's rationale: In relation to a recent CfD, there was no agreement as to what should be done to the categories/articles, so being WP:BOLD, I categorised list articles into a new category called Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country; this naming structure being chosen as it was about the only point with which some parties agreed. Whilst the terms within actual useage is receiving state, we here on WP apparently do not use the term state but rather country. The rename will go someway to recognise usage of the term in the real world; host country is not entirely correct, as articles also include accredited embassies which are not located in the host country. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:04, 14 August 2008 (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:Propaganda films

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 2008 AUG 21 per request. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Propaganda films to Category:to be determined by consensus
This proposal also includes renaming the subcategories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category title is inherently PoV due to the strong negative connotation carried by the word "propaganda", even if Wikipedia consistently uses NPoV criteria for adding films to the category. Possibilities for more NPoV names include "Films described as propaganda" (with a suitably broad interpretation for the category) and "historical propaganda films" (with a narrowing of focus to films that are considered propaganda by historians). Relevant discussion may be found at Category talk:Propaganda films (recent discussion), Category talk:Propaganda, and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3#POV.2FDispute Issues (older discussions) skeptical scientist (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's been done. Deamon138 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it hasn't. Tim! (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm, all of those categories have the cfr tag on them. What categories are you looking at? Deamon138 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ones nominated which are not tagged. Which ones are you looking at? Tim! (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah I see they are on the category talk pages, which is not correct. They should be moved onto the actual category pages. Tim! (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, I've moved them all onto the right pages, I hope I did it okay (although the part where it says "add entry" links to August 9th, rather than the 6th, which I couldn't fix, can anyone else?). Sorry about the confusion Tim!, and thanks for clearing it up lol. Deamon138 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As has been argued on the talk page for this category, I don't think propaganda is a term that can be objectively applied. What is obvious to you or me, is not obvious to someone else. I am certain that even the most blatant piece of propaganda around will still be described by someone else out there (even innocently) as not propaganda. It makes sense to just include those films described as propaganda in this category, because a category called "Propaganda films" is POV (you might not see the negative connotations, but I do) is basically an assertion that a film in it is propaganda. It says on WP:CAT that, "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc." So in this case, Wikipedia itself would be saying, "Article X is a Propaganda film" when that is a POV. Remember, Wikipedia describes the controversy, not advocates it. In response to your other point, "To whom do abdicate to describe something as propaganda?" Well, the exact criteria for that hasn't been decided, but my personal view is that it should be mentioned in reliable, secondary sources (cited in the article of course). I originally wanted one source to describe it as "propaganda", but that would be a little lax, and would let in extreme views. If it has been in a few sources, then it is more likely that it belongs in this category. Thus if extremists are calling something propaganda, then it would need to be shown to have been called that in a few sources, which would thus show that the film is noted for being described as propaganda. Deamon138 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the proposal to rename to "Category:Films described as propaganda" is a complete non-starter. Why is that? Very simple: Because so many different films have been labelled as "propaganda" by so many different people, that virtually any film with a POV might reasonably qualify. Hell, we might even be better off having a category for "Films not described as propaganda". So I Oppose renaming to Category:Films described as propaganda. Having said that, I would also suggest that there might possibly be a place for list-articles of such films, perhaps arranged in such a way as to shed light on the political motivations of both the filmmakers and those who consider the films to be propaganda.

Returning to the question at hand, although this category tree is very problematic, I would not support complete, across-the-board deletion, because there are certain categories of films that are unquestionably "propaganda". I would give serious consideration to restricting Category:Propaganda films to use purely as a "container category" for specific sub-cats devoted to the two groupings I mentioned above -- historical and governmental -- because those films can far more persuasively, verifiably and uncontroversially be demonstrated to be clear instances of propaganda. At present we have about a dozen sub-categories that would come under this umbrella. Cgingold (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me too, though I think we might then soon see category:Intelligent design propaganda films. Be prepared. -R. fiend (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not lose sight of the fact that we need to decide which sorts of sub-categories are okay. We seem to have general agreement that only certain types of films should be categorized as "propaganda". We need to spell this out as clearly as possible. I've already suggested the two major areas that I think are permissible -- historical and government-made/funded. Clearly, the films-by-country sub-cats are no better than the main category, and should also be restricted to sub-cats for certain genres of films. Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2008 (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.
More