< October 8	October 10 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Royal Netherlands Navy minesweepers to Category:Minesweepers of the Royal Netherlands Navy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially identical categories, but the latter matches the predominate style of Category:Minesweepers by navy (Note: I created "Minesweepers of the Royal Netherlands Navy" without realizing that the former was extant.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match parent category. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Municipal seats of Region Hovedstaden to Category:Municipal seats in Capital Region of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article name change. Law Lord (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article Capital Region of Denmark. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Municipalities of Region Hovedstaden to Category:Municipalities in Capital Region of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article name change. Law Lord (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article Capital Region of Denmark. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Snakes of the United States by state to Category:Lists of snakes of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify that contents only include lists, and to match Category:Lists of birds of the United States. Postdlf (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. This is indeed a category consisting of lists. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to better reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Region Sjælland to Category:Region Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Region Sjælland to Category:People from Region Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Region Syddanmark to Category:Region of Southern Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Region Syddanmark to Category:People from Region of Southern Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Region Nordjylland to Category:North Denmark Region

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Region Nordjylland to Category:People from North Denmark Region

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Region Midtjylland to Category:Central Denmark Region

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Region Midtjylland to Category:People from Central Denmark Region

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Region Hovedstaden to Category:Capital Region of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Region Hovedstaden to Category:People from Capital Region of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: Per main article name change. Official English names were not yet known at the time of original article and category creation. Law Lord (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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, using "file" in place of "media". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Image renaming to Category:Media renaming

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia media requiring renaming to Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming

Propose renaming Category:Incomplete media renaming requests to Category:Incomplete file renaming requests

Nominator's rationale: Mislabeled category, as all pages in this category can be either images, audio samples, videos, etc. Should be properly renamed to encompass all pages in the file namespace. — ξ^xplicit 20:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial agree Rename, but to Category:File renaming. And the same for the two subcategories. Rationale: all "image" has been replaced by "file", not "media". Debresser (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added them above. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rename media will also have to be renamed to Template:Rename file. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shouldn't the proposed third category be named Category:Incomplete file renaming requests ("file" without "s"); after all, this has nothing to do with "incomplete files" but with "incomplete requests". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Fixed. Debresser (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I had originally only nominated Category:Image renaming to be renamed to Category:Media renaming. Debresser (talk · contribs) added the following two. It really doesn't matter what we rename them (media vs. file), as long as it's consistent. — ξ^xplicit 23:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eagle to Category:Eagle (comic book)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article, Eagle (comic book). "Eagle" can refer to a car marque, a snack food brand, and a record label among things I more closely associate it with than the comic.- choster (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Here I was, thinking this category was about the bird. — ξ^xplicit 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, one would expect that category to be Category:Eagles.-- choster (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match main article name. The possibility for confusion with the bird is obvious.
• Rename Is ambiguous with the bird. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Lepidoptera food plant lists to Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food. --Xdamr^talk 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lepidoptera food plant lists to Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food plant

Nominator's rationale: Rename to add clarity to the contents. I'm not entirely wedded on my proposed rename, but it's an improvement at least; another possibility might be the simpler Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food. I'll ask the plant and butterfly Wikiprojects for input. Postdlf (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Johan Christian Claussen Dahl to Category:Johan Christian Dahl paintings. --Xdamr^talk 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Johan Christian Claussen Dahl to Category:Johan Christian Dahl paintings

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article Johan Christian Dahl and include the word 'paintings'. — Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial agree Omit Claussen per main article, but do not add "paintings", so this category can be more inclusive. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Neutral re "paintings". Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. All the category currently contains is paintings. If an eponymous category is later warranted, it can always be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Category:Singular albums to Category:Debut albums. --Xdamr^talk 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Singular albums to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: The current wording is clumsy, but I'm not sure how best to word a renamed category. I'd also add that IMO I don't think this is that defining and would also support deletion, upmerging all articles into Category:Debut albums. Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to Category:Debut albums. I agree that this is not particularly defining. There are also maintenance issues involved, because every single debut album that is released heretofore and that has a WP article before the artist's second album is released will have to at least temporarily be included in this category if it is to be accurate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II British minesweepers to Category:World War II minesweepers of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the predominate style of other subcats of Category:World War II minesweepers and to match the only other UK conflict-related class, Category:World War I minesweepers of the United Kingdom. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match usage of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hunt class MCMVs to Category:Hunt class mine countermeasure vessels Category:Hunt class mine countermeasures vessels changed 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article of Hunt class mine countermeasure vessel (and to avoid the abbreviation, to boot). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggested rename changed now that main article is now at Hunt class mine countermeasures vessel, which matches the article mine countermeasures vessel and other mine countermeasures vessel class article names. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Royal Australian Navy mine warfare vessels to Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Royal Australian Navy
• Category:United States Army mine warfare ships to Category:Mine warfare vessels of the United States Army
• Category:United States Navy mine warfare ships to Category:Mine warfare vessels of the United States Navy

Nominator's rationale: To match the predominate naming style of Category:Mine warfare vessels by navy. (Note, in the case of the pair of U.S. categories, the change from "ships" to "vessels".) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match standard of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' to match parent category and equivalent categories for other ship types. -- saberwyn 23:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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.

Relisted for further discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 23#Category:Antisemitic propaganda

Category:Antisemitic propaganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category fails to meet the guidance of NPOV, OR and CAT for the same reasons given for the deletion of category:Anti-gay propaganda detailed at CFD. For consistency the same rationale should be applied here unless a clear consensus between the validity of classifications of "anti-semitic" and "anti-gay" propaganda can be reached. In particular the closing rationale given by Xdamr should be noted - "The fact that the term 'propaganda' can have loaded overtones is established and I am satisfied that this creates the possibility of violations of NPOV, OR, and (if applied to individuals) BLP. Furthermore, the category lacks any objective criteria, either implicit or explicit, for population - categories which rely solely on an appeal to RS are not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of CAT." Ash (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This nomination has a whiff of WP:POINT to it, seeing as how User:Ash argued vigorously for retention of Category:Anti-gay propaganda. Also, the subcategory Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films is not included in this nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair to call trying to achieve consistency in the propaganda categories 'disrupting Wikipedia', unless you mean something else when you refer to POINT. This was also discussed in advance with Xdamr who raised no objection. An assumption of good faith would be a refreshing change.—Ash (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said that there was a "whiff" of it, not that you were actually being disruptive. Anyway, so what you're saying is that you're opinions on the word "propaganda" have changed 180 degrees since the last discussion? Or you just think since one category was deleted, so should the other one? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree I am not being disruptive. As for what I said, please read the nomination above rather than speculating about what I might think or what motivations I might have. If you have an opinion on the CFD I suggest you give it.—Ash (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm trying to figure out what the nominator thinks; i.e. what is the full rationale for deletion—because that necessarily affects my opinion of the nomination. Have your opinions changed since the last discussion? Or is this just a tit-for-tat nomination? If I rely solely upon the nominating statement, I would conclude the latter. I'm giving you a chance to expand on that if you wish to. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be accusing me of tit-for-tat nominations and continue to speculate about me rather than having anything specific to say about this category. Please stop.

I shall again assume good faith and pick up on the question of detail. The reason the nomination refers to the closing statement for the deletion of Anti-gay propaganda was that the rationale for deleting it was entirely on the basis of it being a classification of propaganda by interest (nothing to do with being a gay related category) and the conclusion was that all similar categories should be deleted for the same reasons. Here is the text reproduced; I was trying to avoid duplicating here but unfortunately seems to be necessary:

If you have any further questions please expect at least 24 hours before I respond.—Ash (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fundamental differences between calling something "anti-gay propaganda" and "antisemitic propaganda" have not been addressed by the nominator in the nomination. Just because "anti-gay propaganda" is inappropriate doesn't necessarily mean that "antisemitic propaganda" is also. No argument has been presented that would demonstrate otherwise, except for an assumption that the same considerations apply; I don't think they necessarily do in these cases. Also, nomination is an inconsistent application of the all-or-none approach, since Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films is not nominated, and the nominated category is an appropriately named parent category for the films category, which will remain regardless of the results here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A sad and unfortunate category that should have died out after the Naxi era but that disturbingly persists as a defining characteristic of material published around the world. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this well established category (since 2007), and because the sub-categories alone, such as Category:Antisemitic canards (with three of its own sub-sub categories), Category:Nazi antisemitic propaganda films, and Category:Antisemitic publications (with three additional sub-sub categories) prove the need for this parent category. It would tear the guts out of the whole structure and is therefore a suspicious (WP:POINT or WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND?) counter-productive move. Needless to say Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Nominator is also injecting gay isssues that have no evident logical or any other connection to this category beyond emotional hysteria value in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette that have nothing to do with the reality of antisemitism which is not the same thing as being anti-gay. Being antisemitic is not the same things as being "anti" other things as proper logic and knowledge would teach. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you mis-read the nomination? The rationale for nomination is on the same basis as the nomination for the category anti-gay propaganda, it has nothing to do with "injecting gay issues" into this category as that category was deleted for reasons that had everything to do with propaganda as a category rather than anything to do with gay as a category.—Ash (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So essentially what you're saying is that any category with "propaganda" in it would have to be deleted (or at least renamed), regardless of what the rest of the name of the category includes? There are absolutely no different considerations to be taken into account when it's described as "anti-gay propaganda" versus when it's described as "anti-semitic propaganda"? If this is your position, do you think there would be consensus for such a move, especially in light of this 2008 discussion? And when there are a number of categories that use the word "propaganda", why has this nomination only nominated one of them? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not what the nomination states, refer to the text in the box above which explains the rationale in detail.—Ash (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, except it doesn't answer my questions. Perhaps you could set out some concise, direct answers to them so I could understand. You obviously can see the answers where I cannot. 1. Do you mean (based on the boxed text) that the only problematic ones are the categories in Category:Propaganda by interest? 2. If so, why has only one of these in this category been nominated? 3. Why are the problematic ones limited to this subcategory? 4. If this is what is meant, why are those in Category:Propaganda by interest not OK but the other ones—such as those in Category:Propaganda by medium—are OK? What is the difference, in your opinion? 5. If this particular category were deleted, what would we do with the subcategories that also use the term "propaganda"? 6. What about Category:Communist propaganda—should it be deleted too? I think these are all valid questions that haven't been addressed by the nomination or the boxed text. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply to 1. Yes.
          • Reply to 2. See User_talk:Xdamr#CFD_for_Category:Anti-gay_propaganda.
          • Reply to 3. The precedent of deleting Anti-gay propaganda and associated discussion only related to this category.
          • Reply to 4. This nomination does not imply that all other categories are okay, this falls into the realm of the classic WP:Other things exist argument. I am not interested in (or required to) nominating every similar category before nominating this one.
          • Reply to 5. They either fall under different parents or should be removed with the same rationale.
          • Reply to 6. This already has more than one parent so it would not be affected.
          • Note, please expect at least a 24 hour delay before I reply to any further of your questions.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, great, now just to follow up on #1/#3—and this is the crux of my confusion here—why are the "propaganda by-interest" ones problematic but the "propaganda by-country" ones and the "propaganda by-medium" ones not as much? I understand that the closing administrator kind of suggested in his comment to you that this was the most problematic of those that remained, but I'm not really clear on why that is. Maybe you can't answer this if you're just going on what he recommended, but I think it's worth considering. Or is the answer to this just of the nature of you said in #4—that they are equally inappropriate and should be deleted or renamed too, but you're not interested in doing them simultaneously? (No worries about delays in responding—I realise users are on WP at different times and I don't expect immediately prompt answers to inquiries. 24 hours is a completely reasonable response time—even better than most, I would say.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Segunda División B 2005/06 to Category:2005–06 Segunda División B

Propose renaming Category:Segunda División B 2006/07 to Category:2006–07 Segunda División B

Propose renaming Category:Segunda División B 2007/08 to Category:2007–08 Segunda División B

Propose renaming Category:Segunda División B 2008/09 to Category:2008–09 Segunda División B

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Football season articles must all follow the same naming conventions ("[Season] [Competition]"). The articles in these categories do not yet follow the new naming conventions, but a request has been made for a bot to carry out the moves of all articles in Category:Seasons in Spanish football competitions. – PeeJay 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom, standard naming conventions. GiantSnowman 15:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match standard of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all of the above. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chowdhury family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was tagged for speedy deletion by Aditya Kabir for the following reason: "Chowdhury is pretty common surname in Bangladesh that belongs to hundreds of families and can't possibly ever be treated as an identity that can become a WP category." Since that is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, I'm bringing this here. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – a better idea is to have a disamb page for the surname Chowdhury and its variants. (There is only one article in the category although there are plenty of articles about Chowdhurys, eg A. Chowdhury.) Occuli (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Occuli's proposal looks very nice. Thank you, Jafeluv, for correcting the process. And, of course, I stand by my prior reasoning. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is nothing in common other than the name. Alansohn (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. --Xdamr^talk 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a dead robot RobotG - superseded in any event by Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories Rich Farmbrough, 10:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

For what it's worth, I check Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects regularly, and make appropriate corrections - and I probably wouldn't do the same for the whole of Category:Wikipedia category redirects if "Often-populated" disappeared. And I don't know how Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories is supposed to work, but there are a significant number of non-empty soft redirected categories that I don't see listed there (every currently non-empty category in "Often-populated", for a start). —Paul A (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:RussBot patrols and empties all non-empty redirect categories (except those that have been edited within the past 7 days, to prevent edit wars from spilling over) once every 24 hours; no special attention is given to those in the "Often-populated" subcategory, so I'd shed no tears if it went away. Paul, thanks for your efforts, but you might feel like you are wasting your time now that you know that the bot does the same thing. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. That is, I don't feel that I'm wasting my time, and the bot (which I did know about already) isn't really doing the same thing I'm doing, which is to use misapplied category tags as a way of finding articles that might need work, and then fix the whole article, not just the one misapplied tag. That said, there are other indicators I can use, so I don't really oppose the loss of Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects either. —Paul A (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. If it needs to be re-created in the future as a multi-national container category, that is fine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Quasi-public entities to Category:Quasi-public entities in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The introduction makes it clear that this is a US only category. However I found one entry that was not in the US. This would imply that this structure may exist in other countries. So we should rename this to be more specific to align the name with the current contents and allow recreation if needed later. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but they do indeed exist elsewhere & a global category would be useful. In the UK one lot are called quangos, & have a category with a much longer name. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to clarify US specificness. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Category:Planned airlines of New Zealand to Category:Planned airlines. --Xdamr^talk 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of New Zealand to something or maybe delete

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm bringing this here for a general discussion about the naming of this series of categories. The only article in this category, Kiwijet, was a proposed airline that from the article seems to be dead. So it was planned, but it is not longer. Whatever solution is decided on probably needs to consider eliminating the small by country categories. I guess the questions is, how can a dead proposal be considered planned? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Planned airlines. It is unnecessary to have a national subcategory for just one article. And yes, all "Planned airlines of country X" with just a single article should also be upmerged. Just because there are a handful of countries that have enough "planned airline" articles to justify a subcategory does not mean that all planned airline articles should be subcategorized by country. As to whether the single article in this particular category should still be classified as "planned", I think that is a matter for discussion on the article's talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Vogue to Category:Vogue (magazine)

Propose merging: Category:Vogue navigational boxes to Category:Vogue (magazine)

Nominator's rationale: The first category should be renamed to match the parent article, Vogue (magazine). Additionally, the category should be renamed for clarity, as vogue is a disambiguation page. After renaming is done, Category:Vogue navigational boxes should be merged into the newly renamed category as one navbox isn't enough justification for an entire category. — ξ^xplicit 06:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as category creator (although I am still gnashing my teeth over the deletion of the "Vogue editors" category a while back (as I am sure most of the WP:FASH editors are as well). Daniel Case (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mossberg to Category:O.F. Mossberg & Sons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Madison Dearborn to Category:Madison Dearborn Partners

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - No issue. Article used to be Madison Dearborn but article was moved to match actual firm name |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Panoz to Category:Panoz Auto Development

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rhapsody albums to Category:Rhapsody of Fire albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Maps of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War to Category:Maps of the Six-Day War. --Xdamr^talk 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Maps of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War to Category:Maps of the Six-Day War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category Category:Six-Day War and main article Six-Day War. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fortune to Category:Fortune (magazine)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category relates to the magazine, whose main article is at Fortune (magazine), rather than the concept of fortune (luck or destiny/prophecy).- choster (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. To avoid ambiguity. — ξ^xplicit 00:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Stage actors from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland stage actors. --Xdamr^talk 14:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:Stage actors from Northern Ireland to Category:Northern Ireland Stage actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match with other sub-categories of Category:Stage actors by nationality. -- Thaejas (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this was the formulation settled upon in Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. Occuli (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion one way or the other, but shouldn't the proposed name by Category:Northern Ireland stage actors (using stage rather than Stage)? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Northern Ireland stage actors. This goes against some recent decisions, but I have long been arguing that "Northern Ireland FOOs" is the best compromise between "Northern Irish FOOs" and "FOOs from Northern Ireland", neither of which has been universally applied yet. "Northern Ireland FOOs" allows us to keep the "Barian FOOs" formatting and also allows us to avoid the "Northern Irish" issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Paulini songs to Category:Paulini Curuenavuli songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Paulini albums to Category:Paulini Curuenavuli albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.