< August 20	August 22 >

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 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Festina doping scandal to Category:Festina affair

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article at Festina affair, which is the standard name for the scandal. Dale Arnett (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. `` ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation is much better handled by the details in the main article. While pulling these articles together might make some sense, doing so without any context does not help. If any additional aids for navigation are needed, then it would seem that a navigation template would be a better choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Vegaswikian that this is better handled by links within the main article and between articles. If there is too much material to handle in this manner, then a template is more appropriate than a category that does not and cannot indicate the nature of individuals' involvement in the affair. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per vw and bf - And I'm thinking about nominating the parent Category:Doping cases in cycling for listification. - jc37 03:35, 28 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.

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 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports festivals hosted in London to Category:Sports festivals in London

Nominator's rationale: see:Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_6#Sports_festivals_by_host_country. Paralympic (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per precedent in similar categories. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:49, 26 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.

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 - jc37 10:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: According to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic, this category is trivial and does not "categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life". Amalthea^Talk 22:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As of right now it is an empty category. None of the articles had a source to back up the category. Ward3001 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must this category be deleted while a very specific category with less people, such as "American contraltos", will be kept? I would like to have a running list of those with navel piercings that others can contribute to. Karatorgai (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because contralto is much more defining, as it usually describes a person's reason for notability (i.e., singer). A navel piercing defines the notability of no one. Ward3001 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a contralto has a direct relationship to the reason why the person is on Wikipedia in the first place: they're notable as a singer, and contralto is a description of the type of singer they are. A list of people with navel piercings might be interesting trivia to some people, but it's irrelevant to why those people belong or don't belong in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SparsityProblem (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization indeed, not a truly defining characteristic. We might as well add Category:People with nipple rings, Category:People with tongue studs, Category:People who wouldn't pierce their body parts if you paid them... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we create those as user categories? (*grin*) Bearcat-who'd-be-in-one-of-them (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Utterly non-notable. Ward3001 (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:Snowball. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Please hang on while I give this some serious thought. Um... hmmm... sigh... Okay. I guess really we have no choice but to Delete this. Because otherwise we will have to start categorizing people by the color of their toenail polish and whether they wear a wig or toupé. Cgingold (talk) 22:45, 21 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.

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 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sporting Lisbon players to Category:Sporting Clube de Portugal footballers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club's main article is currently located at Sporting Clube de Portugal. Normally, the category should be called "Sporting Clube de Portugal players", but since Sporting is a multi-sport club, it is necessary to specify the sport in the category name. Therefore, the category should be called "Sporting Clube de Portugal footballers". – Pee Jay 21:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 21:29, 21 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.

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 - jc37 10:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alabama (band) albums to Category:Alabama albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories of this sort don't have the qualifier. I see no reason that this should have a qualifier either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom should do a modicum of research before cfds - this was discussed on 22 Apr 08. Also the band is Alabama (band). (Is this the first time a nom has proposed the reversing of their own earlier nom? Are the otters perhaps divided?) Occuli (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reversing the mistake I made in the April 22 nom. This shouldn't have been renamed; the (band) in the category evidently goes against naming conventions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which naming convention? There are plenty such as Queen (band). Occuli (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it redundant to have the (band) part, since it's obviously a subcat of albums by artist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read "Alabama (band) albums" as albums by the band named "Alabama", and "Alabama albums" as albums by musicians from Alabama. Yes it goes against naming conventions, but there's a reason for that. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- suggested target implies relation to Alabama, not Alabama (band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) .
Keep - while fairly unlikely, there is still the possibility that the unqualified category will be interpreted as being for albums about the state of Alabama rather than albums by the band Alabama. Otto4711 (talk) 21:39, 22 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.

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 - jc37 10:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alabama (band) songs to Category:Alabama songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories of this sort don't have the qualifier. I see no reason that this should have a qualifier either. This is a subcat of Category:Songs by artist, so I can't imagine anyone being confused into thinking that the songs in this category were about Alabama instead of by Alabama (although that's not a stretch, considering how many odes to the South the did). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom's views of Apr 08. Occuli (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reversing that mistake, actually. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my above comment re: albums. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with albums (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high likelihood an unqualified category would be interpreted as being for songs about the state, not songs by the band. Otto4711 (talk) 21:43, 22 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.

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 - jc37 10:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: DELETE I can't even figure out what this is trying to categorize. Seems like nonsense. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unrelated to anything else, besides being mysterious. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No rationale. No explanation. No logical connection of items in the list. No sense. Ward3001 (talk) 01:09, 26 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.

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 all, except parent (Category:Expatriate footballers in England}, and merge all, except the Scottish expatriates, into parent. The case for overcategorization is strong. None of the advocates for keeping have given any convincing reason to ignore our overcategorization guidelines. BTW, Search can be used to find the intersections. For example, American expatriate footballers in England can be found by searching for incategory:"American soccer players" incategory:"Expatriate footballers in England". So instead of making these categories, a page of links could be created to help facilitate the search:

-- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American expatriate footballers in England

Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in England

Category:Dutch expatriate footballers in England

Category:French expatriate footballers in England

Category:German expatriate footballers in England

Category:Jamaican expatriate footballers in England

Category:Moroccan expatriate footballers in England

Category:Scottish expatriate footballers in England

Category:Spanish expatriate footballers in England

Nominator's rationale: Pure and simple overcategorisation. We could have a couple of hundred of these categories and they don't really add any value to the articles to which they're added. For instance, it's not a big extension of the mind to understand that someone born in the Ivory Coast who plays for Manchester United is an ex-pat. And more importantly it implies we should have Category:Welsh expatriate footballers in England and Category:Scottish expatriate footballers in England, leave alone those Cardiff City players from England, all of whom must be in Category:English expatriate footballers in Wales.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Expatriate footballers in England and upmerge all the others into it. (I'm not sure that a Welsh person in England is an expatriate since he is in his country, the UK. I've never heard Neil Kinnock described as an expatriate.) Occuli (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not Neil Kinnock but the Scottish example I gave already exists, maybe Gordon Brown fits here? And I'd appreciate it if you could educate me as to the actual value of this category. It's nothing short of trivial. Next up, "Expatriate footballers who played in the FA Cup final", "Expatriate footaballers who have been convicted of speeding on the M6"...The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown is never described as an expatriate. There is the huge Category:Expatriate footballers and it makes sense to sub-cat this into countries but (in my view) no further. I don't think it is trivial - foreign footballers in England are being blamed for the decline of the national team. I agree that much of this is a mess as there is no agreed meaning of expatriate, which had no sources when I last looked. Occuli (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was since that category already exists, Gordon Brown (were he a footballer) would need to exist within it, by definition. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the overall scheme of Category:Expatriate footballers. I believe this scheme was concocted as a way of bringing some degree of order to the expatriate categories, since well over the majority of the articles in most of the expatriate categories were actually footballers at one point. That being said, I wouldn't oppose the "Welsh in England" or "Scottish in England" being deleted for the reasons discussed—I don't think most sources would consider these people expatriates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scheme so far is Booian expatriate footballers and Expatriate footballers in Foo. Attempts to extend this to Booian expatriate footballers in Foo have been largely resisted so far at cfds (triple intersection). There is also Booian expatriates in Foo ... surely there are enough of these already? Occuli (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These may be exceptional due to the high number of articles about football players playing in England on the English WP. I think that's fine—it's better than having a huge number of articles in the "Booian expatriates in England" category. If it helps organise a large number of articles in a category, I don't think the triple intersection is necessarily problematic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete Category:Scottish expatriate footballers in England per Good Ol’factory. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep except the Scottihs one, which should be deleted. Migration within UK is NN, whereas foreigners in English football certainly is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but rename Scottish one to Category:Scottish footballers playing in England. The word 'expatriate' may not be appropriate to describe Scots living/working in England but to do away with this list while keeping the others isn t right. These are valid subcategory pages (assuming the supra-category pages, Category:Expatriates and Category:Expatriate footballers are valid, which I see them as being). These sub cats cut down on category clutter as 'Category:Expatriate footballers in Booia', 'Category:Fooian expatriate footballers' and 'Category:Fooian expatriates in Booia' can all be combined to a single 'Category:Fooian expatriate footbsllers in Booia'. They also provide useful enough reference (somewhat trivial I agree, but a lot info concerning biography is rather trivial) Mayumashu (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as part of the "expatriate footballers" system. It may be obvious to the nominator what all of this means, but for someone as clueless as I am about footballing, this is useful to figure out who plays for where/what that isn't from there. Statistics and what not. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with FIFA recognising 207 footballing nations, we could end up with over 40,000 categories here. Is that okay? And incidentally, Category:Moroccan expatriate footballers in England has only one occupant so does it really need a category of its own? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I d favour deleting the Moroccan one and any one with less than ten members populating it (as per Wulf below) (and I wish this was a wikipedia-wide policy for creating cat pages) Mayumashu (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, 4 is the magic number, unless a cat is part of a "scheme". (such as these). - jc37 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Is my feeling, the category will rarely be used. We already have categories for everything else. Clubs, leagues, ect. This is just over overcategorisation as Rambling Man said. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we assume, that Category:Fooian expatriates in Booia and Category:Fooian expatriate footballers in Booia are valid and to be kept, they will soon become very, very large. There are currently 563 foreign footballers playing in the Premier League, 647 in the League Championship. Many more played in England over the last years and decades. So it makes sense to subdivide the parent cat. And there are two things of interest here: 1. Where do or did these footballers play abroad? 2. Where do they come from? If a user wants to know for example, which French players spend a time of their career in England (Vieira, Henry, Makelele, Petit, Malouda, etc. etc.), he can use the category system to find out. And we won't habe "40 000 more" categories in the articles, because these subcats will replace both the "expat" cats and the "expat footballers" cats. And besides that, there are of course many French, Dutch, German, Norwegian etc. players in the Premier League, but hardly somebody from countries like Botswana, Fiji, Singapur, India, Mongolia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia etc. etc. If there are at least 10 foreign players from one country, we can create a subcat, I would say.--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what I'm nervous about is a precedent here which allows for Belgian expatriates in France, and vice versa, German expatriates in Austria and vice versa etc etc etc - if these cats are used correctly there will be thousands of them and I want to understand how useful they are. Isn't it obvious that a Frenchman playing in Spain is an expatiriate without having to make a category for it? Oh, and Wulf, I presume you advocate the deletion of the Morocco cat here then as it contains one entry... ~

This is a more general problem concerning the parent cat Category:Expatriates. We don't discuss about this cat here, you can start a new nomination, if you want to. However, if the expat cat is valid, than there should be expat footballer-cats, because there are so many of them. If you read the article about David Ginola, it is of course obvious, that he was an expat, because he played for Newcastle, Tottenham and Aston Villa. But some users would probably also directly use the category system to inform themselves about foreign players in England. I don't think this is too trivial. There is for example a long tradition of Dutch players in Spain, many German players of the 1990 World Cup-winning team played in the Italian Serie A at that time etc. And yes, I would delete the Moroccan category, if there aren't any other Moroccan players to be found.--Wulf Isebrand (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - This is one of those cases of is you nominated them all, they'd oppose the group nom, and if you nominate a few then it's WP:ALLORNOTHING. I think the nominator's points are well taken. I don't think that this is something that we need or should be categorising by. I'm looking at Category:Expatriates, and only see Category:Expatriated football clubs and Category:Expatriate footballers. I think that both trees should be felled. - jc37 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Sheer overcategorization. Example: Gerry Baker is in Category:American expatriate soccer players and Category:Expatriate footballers in Scotland, which is fine, that's the way we've been doing this, like Occuli states. But then he is also in Category:American expatriate footballers in England. What's the point? That's the definition of overcategorization. Or Jacob Lensky, who is in Category:Expatriate footballers in the Czech Republic and Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players, and to confuse matters, Category:Canadian expatriates in the Czech Republic, as well as Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Belgium, Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in England, Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in Scotland, and Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in the Netherlands. How many places is this guy in, anyway? --Kbdank71 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Baker is a British citizen, therefore he can't be considered as an expatriate living in the UK. That's not overcategorization, it's simply a mistake (my fault, to be honest). Jacob Lensky would be in the different "Canadian expatriate"-categories anyway, the "Expatriate footballer"-cats just replaces them. The parent cats Category:Expatriate footballers in the Czech Republic and Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players are obsolete and should be removed following the creation of Category:Canadian expatriate footballers in the Czech Republic. If you delete all the different "expat footballer" cats, there won't be less cats in the article. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete all "expat footballer" cats. Just the useless "fooian expat footballers in bar" ones. --Kbdank71 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, except Category:Expatriate footballers in England, this kind of category intersection is definately overcategorisation. These sub categories give us nothing that cant easily be achieved using Catscan E P 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if/when this tool or one like it was incorporated into wikip (with links to it routinely put on wikiped pages) then I d support to upmerge Mayumashu (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. E P 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion started two weeks ago, it's time for a decision. --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that this discussion is being confused by the inclusion of the parent category Category:Expatriate footballers in England. Categories such as this one have survived on wikipedia for a relatively long time. I can't find the discussion but Category:Non-Iranian footballers in Iran and similar categories were renamed to Category:Expatriate footballers in Iran etc after a discussion where (as far as I remember) nobody suggested deleting the categories entirely. Established categories such as the parent category should be subject to a seperate discussion to the new daughter triple intersection categories. I propose the parent category is removed from the discussion to allow a clear decision on the daughter categories. E P 22:50, 4 September 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.

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:Dance music per jc's arguments. Kbdank71 17:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dance tracks to Category:Dance songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Seems to follow current conventions to change from "tracks" to "song". Wolfer68 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Delete, oh my goodness, delete - First of all, no article for Dance tracks. (Closest I found was: Dance Tracks Vol.1.) This is a recent creation. Dance song and Dance music, and the related category Category:Dance music already cover this, so it's duplicative, as well. That said, after deletion, placing a Template:Category redirect on the page might be appropriate. - jc37 03:51, 28 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Holds only subcategories, main page, discography, and awards. If there were more subpages I might argue for a keep, but so far, this does nothing that Ashanti (singer) does not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this now has 54 articles in 4 subcats. These delete cfds are becoming tedious. (The images are not linked via Ashanti (singer). Articles in subcats are automatically in the parent. Articles do not navigational hubs make.) Occuli (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. — CharlotteWebb 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obvious parent category for the sub-cats. Lugnuts (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contrary to my learned colleague's opinion above, articles can and do serve as appropriate navigational hubs. And templates certainly do, and everything (including the images located on album and song articles) is accessible through the complete navigational template. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question: How is this cat any different than any of the others in: Category:Categories named after musicians? - jc37 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not terribly different from many of those categories, which IMHO should also be deleted. IMHO the only reasons why a musician (or actor, philosopher, whatever) should have eponymous categories are: 1) the material related to that person is so complex that the main article can't serve as an appropriate navigational hub (i.e. Category:The Beatles) or the category contains articles that, without the eponymous category, would have no appropriate parent (i.e. Category:Rush (band)). The notion that just because there are categories for a singer's albums and songs somehow mandates that there be a category for the singer makes no senss to me, because I have yet to see an article on a singer that doesn't include either a complete discography or a link to a discography article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose I'm could suggest that this is a valid WP:ALLORNOTHING situation. But anyway, I don't have much of a problem with these being used as "parent cats" for the singer's related cats. 4 (or more) directly-related subcats would indeed seem to be enough to justify keeping such categories as parents, at least. - jc37 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. - jc37 23:19, 26 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.

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 - jc37 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any usefulness in this category now. When it was first created, I suppose there was a need to keep track of these, but m:ParserFunctions are a very stable and well-known MediaWiki feature, and are widely used on many more templates than are categorized here. As a woefully incomplete and undermaintained category, with questionable need for it to exist, I propose deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, serves no purpose anymore, there's hardly a template left without at least an if function. Maybe a Category:Templates not using ParserFunctions though… --Amalthea^Talk 00:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to Category:Templates. — CharlotteWebb 02:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there appears to be no advantage (anymore?) in knowing which templates use ParserFunctions. GregorB (talk) 19:02, 25 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.

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 29. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: First, as per Wikipedia:CAT#Searching for articles in categories, there is no need for categories that are simply intersections of other categories. Second, the criteria for this category are impossibly vague. Who is to decide whether a particular feminist topic has any special relevance to sexuality (some would argue that anything to do with feminism is also related to sexuality)? Who is to decide whether a particular sexuality-related topic has special relevance to feminism (again, some would argue that any sexuality topic is related to feminism)? I stumbled upon this category because Marilyn Hacker was added to it, presumably because she is a writer who is a feminist and who is also queer; but it's a bit objectionable to place someone in a "sexuality" category solely because they have a non-heterosexual sexual orientation. (Certainly she has written about sex, but so have most authors of fiction and poetry who write for adults.) I can't see how there can be any objective criterion for inclusion in this category. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a major component of feminist theory and feminist thought deals with issues related to sexuality because it is so strongly bound up with gender issues. This category acts as a kind of catch-all and is very well populated; therefore, there is no need to delete it. --Wassermann (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but it's hard to find any strand of feminist theory that doesn't relate to sexuality in some way. Like I said, it's a matter of opinion where to draw the line between "Feminism and sexuality" and plain "feminism". As for the category being well-populated, it may well be populated, but not necessary with entries that are relevant. To pick five random ones: Going Dutch (whose connection to feminism or sexuality is tenuous); Female ejaculation (certainly sexuality-related, but is this a feminist issue? if so, then so is everything to do with the female body); Slut Night (a social gathering that doesn't seem directly relevant to feminism, unless you think any gathering of women is feminist); Adrienne Rich (a feminist writer who has certainly written about sexuality, but if all such writers were included, it would be rather large and not too helpful for navigation), and Joissance (possibly the only relevant article in my random sample.) I'm not just arguing that the category as it is now contains many inappropriate articles, as that would not be a rationale for deletion. Rather, I'm arguing that by its nature, the category will inevitably contain many articles whose inclusion cannot be evaluated objectively. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I do see a rationale for this category, it's sorely in need of clear inclusion criteria to turn it into a more useful category instead of serving as a sort of dumping ground for all manner of articles that are perceived to relate to those topics in some way or other. It's also possible that it might help to tweak the name in some way. I think this needs more input from other editors, so please relist for further discussion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 09:59, 27 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.

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: upmerge. Kbdank71 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amtrak stations in Butte County, California

Nominator's rationale: only one member/existing more general category is sufficient Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to County. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Southern Pacific Railroad stations in California and Category:Amtrak stations in California no need for a county category since the article is already in the city category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Delete and add Category:Southern Pacific Railroad stations in California and Category:Amtrak stations in California to the Chico (Amtrak station) to replace this specific category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What he said - (points to User:Vegaswikian) - jc37 03:54, 28 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.

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: ugh, I really hate the "keep as part of a series" rationale. A one article category is useless. Period. Upmerge if you want. Whatever, this is just my minority opinion, sorry for the rant. Keep. Kbdank71 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in Butte County, California

Nominator's rationale: only one member/existing more general category is sufficient Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to County. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Southern Pacific Railroad stations in California and Category:Amtrak stations in California no need for a county category since the article is already in the city category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Keep as part of a series, Category:Railway stations in California by county. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What he said - (points to User:Vegaswikian) - jc37 03:54, 28 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.

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, empty. Kbdank71 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non notable category. Surely Biometrics is a better category, and main article was recently deleted after an AfD (overwhelming delete) Verbal chat 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one-member cat created to serve a single deleted article. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Empty. (It has itself as a member : ) - jc37 04:03, 28 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.

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. Kbdank71 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:EMI albums to Category:EMI Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge to follow WP:NCCAT, see similar Category:Warner Bros. albums and Category:Warner Bros. Records albums Tassedethe (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. We don't need two categories for this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I was concerned that there might be a few releases which were directly under the EMI label, but after doing some checking, it seems the records label was founded in 1972, predating the members of the category (or at least the ones I checked). As noted, two is duplicative. - jc37 04:03, 28 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.

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 17:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ferries in Bangkok to Category:Ferries of Bangkok

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To cleanup following the consensus in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous discussion, WP:NCCAT, and per nom : ) - jc37 04:03, 28 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.

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 17:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An overly narrow/specialized category; all of the member orgs are already listed in the article, Brain Tumor Funders' Collaborative. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless category. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harmless it may be, but I don't believe the organization is sufficiently notable to warrant a category for its members. Cgingold (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the grouping is more appropriately listed in the article. (If we categorised every organisation that every other organisation belonged to...) - jc37 04:03, 28 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.

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. Sorry, folks, but there still isn't any consensus, and I don't think relisting it for yet another week is going to solve that. Kbdank71 18:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro/summary for newly arriving editors:

This discussion is focused on finding a lasting solution to long-standing concerns about the inherent POV issues involved in applying the term "propaganda" to particular films. It has moved through several phases, and has been relisted twice for further discussion. It started out as a renaming proposal, searching for an alternative name that might provide the solution to the problem. It then moved into another phase with the suggestion that it be restricted to a number of "container categories", with sub-categories limited to certain specified genres of film. It is now in phase three, with input having been solicited from two Wiki projects in hopes of forging a broader concensus. Please take the time to read through all of the comments so that your remarks will respond to, and benefit from having read, the issues that have already been addressed. (It's really not all that long! :) Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 10:54, 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]

Support rename per discussion on Category talk:Propaganda films. My choice is "Category:Films described as propaganda". Deamon138 (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support concur with above. I think once again it would be prudent to quote WP:CAT: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Very few, if any, films are self-evidently propaganda, and such designations are usually controversial. This category has been, and in cases still is, rife with abuse. -R. fiend (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm obviously swimming against the current here, but Films described as propaganda seems too weasel-worded to me. Rather than change to that, I'd rather just abandon propaganda categories altogether. To whom do abdicate to describe something as propaganda? If any right- or left-wing journal describes a film it does not like as propaganda, is it included? Mainstream publications such as the NY Times often publish highly personal essays or reviews that are anything but objective or authoritative - does the NY Times film reveiwer now have the power over Wikipedia to define Films described as propaganda? I'm not bothered by the "strong negative connotation" of the word propaganda as defined in the wiki article; objectively applied, it's a useful term. Unfortunately, too many wiki editors apply the popular definition: "My favorite political film is God's Truth; it's only that other guy's film that is propaganda."

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]

Comment - Let me start by saying that I've been involved a number of CFDs on this very issue, starting back in December 2006, when I argued for the deletion of three sub-cats in this category tree (Category:Left-wing American propaganda films, Category:Right-wing American propaganda films, and Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films) because they were all being blatantly abused to label any film with a strong POV as "propaganda". More recently we had a CFD discussion about Category:American propaganda films and its sub-cats, which was closed "no concensus". At that time I suggested that we might want to consider restricting these categories to historical propaganda films and/or films made by governments.

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]

Please relist for further discussion. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 01:35, 14 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]

Strongest possible oppose to rename to Category:Films described as propaganda; this would render the categories meaninglessly broad and just result in endless edit wars over whose descriptions merited categorization. And when is being "described as" X by...anyone...a defining feature of anything? Better to delete these outright than to make them so utterly useless. But Cgingold may have a valid suggestion above for saving them. Postdlf (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Postdlf, what changes would you support? skeptical scientist (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm neutral right now as to all other options. Postdlf (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in favor of any solution that seems to have a good chance of fixing the problems I outlined above. I would support restricting the category to a container category for subcategories of WWI propaganda, WWII propaganda, etc. I would support restricting the category to films made with governmental support. I would support renaming the category to historical propaganda films, and suitably restricting membership. There's a good chance I would support other proposals to deal with the inherent PoVness of the category. But the current situation makes it very easy to use (or appear to use) the category to push a specific PoV, and that has to change. skeptical scientist (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to think it's pretty obvious that a reliable source must describe the film as propaganda for inclusion, not just any guy on his blog. That should put to rest this idea that most films would go into this category, as it is not a word that is mentioned in most professional reviews or articles (furthermore, the film should be described as propaganda, not compared to; there is a significant difference). I do agree, however, that such renaming would address POV issues, but leave the other issues unaddressed. I'm all for any solution mentioned so far, I think, and what I'm worried about happening is consensus for a substantial change being necessary, but the status quo remaining because no specific solution can be agreed upon. So I guess I'd like to alter my position from endorsing a specific name change to support anything that addresses the current issues including renaming, deleting, or maintaining solely as a container category. -R. fiend (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I went through all articles in the named categories, removing any which didn't explain in the article why they were propaganda films, and moving others to appropriate subcategories when possible (creating, in the process Category:Soviet revolutionary propaganda films). This will make our lives a lot easier if we decide to restrict the categories to pure container categories for subcats, but regardless of any decision here I think the changes make sense on their own. Rather than listing all of the changes I made here, I suggest that anyone who wants to look at them check my contribs. There are now only five films left in the named categories (apart from those included in subcategories): Expelled, which should (imo) be removed, but that issue will have to wait until there is some consensus about what should be done with the propaganda films categories in general, and four films which I thought could reasonably qualify as propaganda films based on the material in their articles, but which didn't fit into any existing subcategories. Right now I think the best option is to restrict the five named categories to be "container categories" which can include only subcategories but not any other articles (with the exception of the Propaganda films article which would of course stay in the propaganda films category). After all, it's a lot easier to (intentionally or not) abuse Category:Propaganda films to serve a PoV than it is to abuse Category:World War II propaganda films. I think our second best option is to restrict membership to films made with government involvement. I would support either of these options. Of course, I'm still open to any alternative solutions anyone would like to propose. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support skeptical scientist's solution immediately above: empty the main cat of all but Propaganda films and subcategories. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:02, 16 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]

Agreed. skeptical scientist (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Cgingold above, the main reason to rename this category to Category:Films described as propaganda, comes from WP:CAT. There it says, "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 the current name suggests that Wikipedia itself is describing the films as propaganda. This is all well and good with a NPOV category about say musicians, but with a term like propaganda, it is inherently negative. This is why the category should be renamed. Currently, it is saying, "Triumph of the Will is a propaganda film". Is this so? Pretty much all of us will agree that that particular film is propaganda, but then we editors are not reliable sources! Hence it should be renamed to Category:Films described as propaganda, so that we get, "Triumph of the Will has been described as propaganda", which, if the sources are reliable, no-one can argue with. But it doesn't matter how obviously propaganda something is, there will always be someone to dispute, and there will always be a POV attached to the term, which we must avoid if Wikipedia is to describe the controversy and not be a part of the controversy.

Deamon138, I think your comment here was largely shaped by your desire to find an alternate name that would allow a more expansive use of these categories, as elaborated upon below. It thus glosses over the distinction between strong POV films and those genres that all film scholars, etc. would agree are "propaganda", regardless of their politics. Cgingold (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The need for more than one source is obvious: it gets rid of films being included in this category because one or two extremists have called it propaganda. So, if several reliable sources describe the film as propaganda, then it is much much more likely that the film is notable for being propaganda, rather than just a film that has a POV that a bunch of people don't like (this also removes Cgingold's problem above of having so many films described as propaganda). If Expelled or An Inconvenient Truth fits that criteria, then so be it, we would have to include them. Personally, I think it is unlikely that those two would be included under that criteria, because not enough sources have described them as propaganda, but we shall see. Obviously, we will need to work out exactly how many sources need to describe a film as propaganda before it is allowed into this category. But the important thing is, is that the number of sources will restrict the films included to only those that are noted for being propaganda, and noted by independent sources too, not ourselves.

I'm afraid I don't see this as a workable solution, Deamon138. Consider the following: if we set the number of such sources at say, three, that would lead to a certain number ("X") of films going into the category. But if we set the number of sources at five, the number of films would drop substantially, perhaps by 90%. So which is the right choice? I don't see how we can possibly agree on the answer. But even if we were to agree on how many sources would be required, that overlooks something else: what about those cases where other qualified sources take issue with the idea that film Xyz is "propaganda"? How would that get factored in? What a can of worms! In short, I think our only realistic option is some form of restriction along the lines I've suggested. Cgingold (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think the category should be restricted to governmental or historical types. What if say a terrorist organization made one? At the end of the day, we should use what the sources are saying, and if a number of sources are saying that "X is propaganda" and even if X is neither historical nor governmental, then it doesn't matter. Clearly then the reliable sources think it is noted for being propaganda despite not fitting into those two groupings. I don't mind having lots of container categories like skeptical scientist said above, so long as the rest of the criteria are followed that have I suggested. Deamon138 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a very interesting issue here, Deamon138. I would love to be able to come up with a good workable solution that would allow for such films to be categorized as "propaganda". But I'm not sure it can be done. You do realize, I'm sure, that combining those two supremely contentious terms -- "terrorist" and "propaganda" -- compounds the likely POV issues to the Nth degree, in terms of the argumentation that would ensue. As I said above, the only sorts of films that can uncontroversially be designated as "propaganda" are those that fall into the two broad groupings of historical (eg. World War II era) and government-made/funded, since no serious scholar would take issue with the designation in thoses cases. In the end, I think we probably have to resign ourselves to living with only a limited array of films characterized as propaganda, with some films that arguably are propaganda left out because they don't fit in one of the agreed upon sub-categories. Cgingold (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for admin: I know this has already been relisted once, but please relist again. The total length is not all that great, and it would be a real shame to waste the effort that's been put into this discussion by forcing a new CFD to start over from scratch. Cgingold (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist section break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little concerned that none of the people who support including the category on Expelled have weighed in here. I originally proposed some sort of change to this category because I felt it was being misused particularly in that instance. Assuming we reach some sort of consensus here, if we tried to enforce it there, I think that the editors who have been involved in expelled are going to feel like we pulled the rug out from under them. I guess I'll try to solicit some input from those quarters, since it would be helpful if they could be involved in the process. skeptical scientist (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good -- given the inherent difficulty of this particular subject, whatever we settle on here needs to reflect a broad concensus. Cgingold (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first let's propose a name to change it to. It would help the discussion. DGG (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I posted a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to see if we can get more discussion from the related project. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. Cgingold (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, just responding to the request for input posted at WT:FILM. It seems to me that the word "propaganda" is indeed perfectly appropriate in a technical sense, but that it carries too many negative connotations to be used as/in the name of a category. A flick through my thesaurus looking for an alternative proves as much, as almost every synonym comes from the same overwhelmingly-negative pot. Unfortunately, Category:Films described as propaganda is hamstrung by the weasel-wording, as are most of the alternatives I can come up with. There are several neutral category names I can think of, but almost all of them fail through being hideous manglings of language quite obviously designed to avoid having to use that word: Category:Films promoting a point of view, Category:Films advancing a viewpoint, Category:Films advancing an opinion, Category:Films of disputed neutrality (weasel?), Category:Films advancing a belief. You get the general idea. While it's likely none of these will be appropriate, this is the direction I reckon you should be looking (Category:Films X-ing a Y). If all else fails, and there really isn't a suitable alternative, then either 1) the category should be deleted, or 2) it should be stripped from every film article in order to begin over. Those chosen should only be those overwhelmingly, positively, indisputably recognised as such (though this might just leave us in the same place we are now, arguing the status of something like Expelled until the end of time itself). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Steve. Seeing as you came here after seeing the note posted at WikiProject Films, I want to be sure you're aware that this isn't strictly a renaming discussion, but has also delved into other possible solutions -- in particular, my suggestion that we consider restricting the major categories to use as "container categories", with a limited number of sub-cats for specified genres of propaganda films. Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be my first choice, but I've seen Category:Polemical films suggested. skeptical scientist (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion -- if our only option were to come up with a term to replace the word "propaganda", I'd say "polemical" is probably about as good a choice as we're likely to find. But in the end, I'm afraid it still suffers from the same fundamental defects as the other terms that have been suggested: on the one hand, it's still subjective -- and on the other hand, it's still too broad (though less so than some of the other terms). To elaborate further, if we did rename these categories, substituting "polemical" for "propaganda", the result would be twofold: firstly, a lot more films would undoubtedly be placed in these categories; at the same time, since the two terms are not identical, the distinction between "propaganda" and "polemical" would be seriously blurred. While it's true that all propaganda films are in some sense "polemical", it's not the case that all polemical films can fairly be described as "propaganda" -- yet they would be lumped together with "dis-honest to goodness" propaganda. Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the renaming at this point since there is no consensus for change as to the vagueness of even defining the term. Let's see if the term "propaganda" can first be fully defined as a lead into the group of films. Regardless of the negative connotations of the word, it is the correct usage. "Bending" it into something else I believe is a fruitless exercise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Have you given any thought to the suggestion outlined above to restrict these to container categories and a limited array of specified sub-categories? Cgingold (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please see my newly added comments just above the section break, interspersed as replies to Deamon138's remarks. Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support the cat name change would make it more friendly to the films (it's not our job to defame them) and open the cat up to more films. 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

comment At the moment, expelled is the only ID film that could be remotely listed as a propaganda film... so I don't think it's necessary to make a new cat. We could make a general "ID films" cat. That would be broad enough to contain at least ten films. Saksjn (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? What does "ID films" refer to? Cgingold (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID stands for Intelligent Design. I think this is in response to R. Fiend's comment above: if the propaganda films categories are restricted to container categories, he thinks "we might then soon see category:Intelligent design propaganda films." Of course, people on one side of the debate would see this as biased labeling, and people on the other side would then see it as redundant. :P skeptical scientist (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename; strays even further from the purpose of the category. Like I stated on the talk page for the category, films should be categorized as propaganda films when they have been historically established as such. You're not going to be able to categorize the political films of the past decade. Determine a film's qualification on a case-by-case basis instead of renaming the category because a film from the past year or so is debatable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename as per Erik. Conversely, however, I see the merits of perhaps deleting or severely restricting category entirely. For example, consider if we had a Category:Racist films and all of the edit wars which would ensue. Perhaps it simply is better left to discuss propaganda accusations in the article text instead of with drive-by categorization. Unfortunately, this category is likely to remain a highly-contentious label in practice no matter what. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: The WP:Categorization policy says that:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

Perhaps, for contentious categories like propaganda and propaganda films, this should be extended so that if categorization is controversial among Wikipedia editors, the category should not be included in the article. This would ensure that the label only appears on the most straightforwardly propaganda films, and that we are not using the category as a smear. Such a policy may prove to be abusable, but I hope that it might resolve this issue without causing more issues of its own. skeptical scientist (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a terrible idea, that would mean that any wiki-lawyering would automatically be effective - that even the psuedoscienciest of psuedoscience couldn't be classified as such if one practitioner made enough fuss. Hell no. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename: The movie Expelled has generated considerable heat by a very few who wish this film not to be classified as propaganda. However, it is difficult to think of a non-wartime film that is more propagandistic than Expelled. It has been so described by a great number of mainstream publications, including Time, The New York Times, Scientific American, multiple religious organizations, the vast majority of professional movie reviewers, and, as I recently discovered, the BBC. For Wikipedia NOT to classify it as propaganda gives more fuel to those who insist Wikipedia is irrelevant, inaccurate, and inconsequential. If Wikipedia can't classify propaganda as propaganda, that in itself is propaganda. What good is that in an encyclopedia?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying that the rename would exclude Expelled from this category. Rather, the rename is to make the name of the category NPOV. Why would a rename to "Category:Films described as Propaganda" necessarily expel Expelled? Deamon138 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to take issue with what you've just said, Deamon -- that's exactly what I'm saying. As much as I personally consider this film to be rank propaganda, I just don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of labelling all manner of films as "propaganda". This is very much the same argument that I made in the CFDs noted above for left & right-wing propaganda films. The real problem with this film is that it blatantly distorts basic facts and issues. Anybody seen Birth of a Nation recently? Perhaps we should have a Category:Films that play fast and loose with the facts -- wouldn't that be overflowing with articles (heh heh). Cgingold (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me. I am saying that if a rename to Category:Films described as propaganda went ahead, then it wouldn't automatically expel Expelled from this category. That would be decided afterwards. It might turn out that we decide not to include Expelled in this category. Or it might be that we do. In my proposal, it's the sources that decide if something ought to be in the category. If UnicornTapestry is so sure that multiple sources have described Expelled as propaganda, then that would be able to be shown by him or other editors, and thus it would probably get into the category under this name. Basically I'm saying that the rename shouldn't necessarily target one film for removal/admittance to the category, rather it should be looking at the bigger picture. Deamon138 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC) (Btw, I shall reply to your other points above at a later time)[reply]

Comment: I'd rather just see it deleted. I can't imagine what kind of definition could be given which wouldn't be POV. If deletion isn't possible, than "Films described as propaganda" is better than nothing, but since we don't have a category for "Films described as lame," I'm not sure why this is a good idea. The Propaganda film article is good enough. Something like "World War II era films" would make more sense, and help distinguish between movies made at that time and a movie like Pearl Harbor (film) which is arguably a "World War II propaganda film" =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As a number of people have admitted, this is really about being able to include/exclude Expelled from the category. The issue with that film, though, is that in its case "propaganda" is really a slur about its truthfulness/accuracy rather than the genre in which it can be categorized. I don't think we should be setting up our categories specifically to respect those highly NPOV characterizations, when those characterizations are essentially abuses of the term in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: where has one person, let alone a number of people, admitted that the rename is about including/excluding Expelled? That is not the purpose at all. Please read the discussion again. Deamon138 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Perhaps "admitted" was not precisely accurate. And perhaps Expelled is only being used as a poster child for pejorative categorization. The problem remains that the entries in the subcategories (e.g. Category:American World War II propaganda films) are by objective standards propaganda films-- not because of their age, but from the cirucmstances and and intent of their making. They need no weaselly "characterized as" qualifier. Also see new section below. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cgingold above, before the last relist section break, you make some very interesting points, which I am now going to respond to:
"Consider the following: if we set the number of such sources at say, three, that would lead to a certain number ("X") of films going into the category. But if we set the number of sources at five, the number of films would drop substantially, perhaps by 90%. So which is the right choice? I don't see how we can possibly agree on the answer." I agree, for us all to agree on a number seems arbitrary, and difficult to decide. Which is why now I think that maybe not the quantity of sources will do perhaps, but the way it is in the article. For instance, film X's article might have a discussion of the film by critics (good or bad). Within that discussion in the article, the point might be raised that some critic or other has described it as propaganda. That in and of itself to me wouldn't be enough. I now think it would have to be discussed potentially as propaganda as a fair amount of the text: say a few sentences or paragraphs. The exact amount doesn't matter, so long as the sources used in the article suggest that the film is notable for being discussed as propaganda. This would certainly rule out extremist views. Take a hypothetical example: 12 Angry Men (one of my favourite films actually). It is certainly possible that an extremist (perhaps someone as bigoted as juror number 10?) has dubbed that film "propaganda", although unlikely. However, in this hypothetical example, let's say one critic has. If that was the case, it may even be possible that editors would then verify said information, and write a sentence on it in the article. However,that wouldn't be enough imo to put the film in this category, because only one extremist has dubbed it propaganda, and it is unlikely to have generated any other discussion or even controversy over that (most other critics would just ignore the extremist in this hypothetical). However, let us say that instead of one critic, a few critics are calling it that. It doesn't matter on the exact number of critics, only that these few critics have done so in reliable sources, and that their views are prominently discussed in the article text. Now of course, this prospect is absurd with something like 12 Angry Men (anyone describing that as propaganda is likely to be the fringest of the fringe), but what about Expelled? What about Triumph of the Will? What about this one and that one? These are all things we should decide on a case by case basis, and not here and now. But the only criteria needed, would be that a discussion of its "propaganda-ness" is prominently featured in the article, with said discussion reliably sourced, and following all the other policies/guidelines of Wikipedia as per usual.
"But even if we were to agree on how many sources would be required, that overlooks something else: what about those cases where other qualified sources take issue with the idea that film Xyz is "propaganda"? How would that get factored in? What a can of worms!" But you are raising the point that I've been making all along: that the idea that propaganda is subjective, and that is a negative idea at that. This is the whole reason to not have the category at "Propaganda films", per point 9 at Wikipedia:CAT#Some_general_guidelines. It is subjective, and negative, to call something propaganda. And it can't be Wikipedia that does it. "Films described as propaganda" isn't Wikipedia doing it, but those who are describing it as propaganda. And if the criteria from my last bullet point are followed, then it won't be a fringe view, it will be notable at being described as propaganda, whether it deserves to be or not.
"You do realize, I'm sure, that combining those two supremely contentious terms -- "terrorist" and "propaganda" -- compounds the likely POV issues to the Nth degree, in terms of the argumentation that would ensue." Of course yes: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is true. However, this can be equally applied to governmental propaganda. It just emphasizes the subjectivity of the term: "One man's propaganda is another man's God's honest truth." Or something.
"As I said above, the only sorts of films that can uncontroversially be designated as "propaganda" are those that fall into the two broad groupings of historical (eg. World War II era) and government-made/funded, since no serious scholar would take issue with the designation in thoses cases." I think if anything can be uncontroversially called propaganda, then those sorts would be the ones, but I think that there is very very few films that have been called that uncontroversially, and that allowing only a small number of films into this category would make the category redundant. Besides, what about if a non-historical (and where do we draw the line there? How long ago is "history"?), and non-governmental film, is uncontroversially called propaganda by the sources? What then?
Some users above have mentioned that the name "Films described as propaganda" is a bit weaselly. I think this is the best argument against that name, but for me, it is not an argument for keeping the current name. The reason to rename is POV, and the argument against the name I have suggested is weasel words. For me, weasel words are better than the POV of the current name. Whatever solution we come up with, I am strongly opposed to the status quo. I am not entirely sure if weasel words are allowed in category titles or not (I should be interested to read the guideline/policy please), but I would say that while the title might be weaselly, if they click on each article, they would then see who it is that is saying it. Not perfect I know, but I think it is 100% better than the status quo. I have another few solutions I will outline below:

Rename to Category:Films described as propaganda as discussed already.
Rename to Category:Potential propaganda films. I'm not a big fan of this one, but it is better than the status quo.
Listify to something like List of film propaganda controversies (or a better name if you can think of one). I have stated that a list is definitely a viable option, and it would almost certainly solve both the weasel problem and the current POV problem. It would allow us to describe the controversial propaganda aspect(s) of each film in a little detail, with more detail given in the actual article if the controversy is that big. This is currently my second favourite option, but if people like this one better, then I fully support this one. Of course, this would mean deleting the category, as there would be no need for it anymore. But this one is definitely a good option.
Rename the category to something like Category:Controversial films. This would make the category very loose, and would let in a lot of films. It wouldn't be based on propaganda anymore, just on whether the film has created a notable controversy, and this controversy could be virtually anything within reason. This would open the floodgates so to speak, but it would end this debate about POV completely. It may contain many many films, but I think it is (just) a viable option to us.
Delete the category. If neither of those ideas are good enough for everyone, and nothing in a similar vein can be decided on, then I'm afraid I can't support the continuation of this category. The status quo is too POV.

Okay, what do people think of these ideas? Deamon138 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - As I was reading through this nomination, I was mostly of the opinion that the current name is probably best for it as a category. "...described as..." (as others noted) is just simply a bad idea. And the constant quote: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories." refers more to the membership. You can indeed (in some cases, anyway) annotate a category itself. Merely write up some clarifying explanation as to what the inclusion criteria is for the category. If the name isn't as clear as you'd like, but it's the best name you can think of, then explain that in the intro. I'm sure someone will come along and offer you some suggestions. However, I was swayed by the second part of that quote: "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." - As this discussion itself has shown, these should be lists. I was stunned that someone was actually discussing how many references would be necessary for inclusion. If it needs referencing that badly, then this should be a list. - jc37 04:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify all, and then Delete - per my comments above. - jc37 04:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While not criticizing you for saying that listifying is the best option, I am bemused as to why you think that categories don't need to be sourced in the article itself. Per point 8 at Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines, "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the ((Category unsourced)) tag if the article is in a category but no sources demonstrate the category is appropriate." Deamon138 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misunderstood my comments. My surprise wasn't at the idea of references, it was at the idea of establishing an arbitrary number of references. - jc37 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political documentaries[edit]

I've been looking around in the categories and came upon Category:Political documentaries, which I think is a better solution to our categorization issues. Which is to say, something like Expelled is much more like Manufacturing Dissent or Bowling for Columbine or Outfoxed, all of which are categorized somewhere under "political documentaries". If we make the relationship between "propaganda" and "political documentaries" clear, then I think we can make matters a lot easier on ourselves and avoid the renaming problem. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 27 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.

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 - jc37 10:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: OCAT. This is a category for Hong Kong schools that have kindergarten classes. If applied on a broader basis, this could grow to include virtually all elementary schools in the US. No need to listify since List of kindergartens in Hong Kong already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in the UK and doubtless in HK kindergarten (or nursery school or playgroup) means pre-school (ie under 5 years of age). It is the only kindergarten category I could find, and there don't seem to be any nursery school cats. Occuli (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: surely it can only grow to include all the elementary schools in the US if all the elementary schools in the US are notable? Wasn't there some decision made somewhere about what types of schools are considered notable and which are not? If it can be shown that some Kindergarten schools in Hong Hong are notable enough for articles, then it would make sense to have the category. What other category could a Kindergarten school go in anyway? Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCHOOLS does not have any guideline. I think it is fair to say that consensus is that pre secondary schools are not in and of themselves notable. They can be notable on a case by case basis with appropriate reliable sources. The issue with this category, and likely most other kindergartens is that they are probably not going to be notable on their own. In the case of this category they are all schools that happen to have a kindergarten class. So this is not, in my opinion notable or defining for the schools. The schools are notable since they are notable for their other education levels. The list servers the function of listing these schools quite well and there is no need to put these in a category. If we do get a notable article on a pre primary school, it can go in the schools category for the country, or whatever, where it is located. One school does not need a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, thanks for clearing that up. Well I guess that means I'm going for delete too. Deamon138 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the complete absence of any articles about kindergartens in Hong Kong, there is simply no reason for this category to exist. Cgingold (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability concerns, uniformity across nations, and Cgingold's issues. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- We do not (usually) have articles on primary schools and certainly do not need them on Kindergardens or other preschools. One of the few articels in this category is a list, almost all of redlinks. Can some one get an AFD going on that before some one starts creating articles on all these NN pre-schools? Or perhaps the mark-up should be taken off, leaving it as a bare list. However WP is not a directory. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 21 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.

August 21

Category:Festina doping scandal

Category:Sports festivals hosted in London

Category:People with navel piercings

Category:Sporting Lisbon players

Category:Alabama (band) albums

Category:Alabama (band) songs

Category:Taste in music

Category:Expatriate footballers in England

Category:Dance tracks

Category:Ashanti (singer)

Category:Templates using ParserFunctions

Category:Feminism and sexuality

Category:Amtrak stations in Butte County, California

Category:Railway stations in Butte County, California

Category:Traceless Biometrics

Category:EMI albums

Category:Ferries in Bangkok

Category:Brain Tumor Funders' Collaborative

Category:Propaganda films

Relist section break[edit]

Category:Political documentaries[edit]

Category:Kindergartens in Hong Kong

Category:Antarctic Press

Category:Eclipse Comics