< October 17	October 19 >

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ned Beatty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL, no foreseeable growth of this category. — ξ^xplicit 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Why this was created I don't really understand. We don't need an eponymous category to hold an article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:32, 20 October 2010 (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) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Naval engagements of the Mexican–American War to Category:Naval battles of the Mexican–American War

Propose renaming Category:Naval engagements of the Mexican Revolution to Category:Naval battles of the Mexican Revolution

Propose renaming Category:Naval engagements of the Opium Wars to Category:Naval battles of the Opium Wars

Propose renaming Category:Naval engagements of the Philippine–American War to Category:Naval battles of the Philippine–American War

Propose renaming Category:Naval engagements of the Iran–Iraq War involving the United States to Category:Naval battles of the Iran–Iraq War involving the United States

Propose merging Category:Naval engagements of the Korean Conflict involving the United States to Category:Naval battles of the Korean War involving the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Matching all other subcategories of Category:Naval battles. Also, matching the Korea category to all subcategories of Category:Korean War.Mike Selinker (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom to match sibling subcats Hmains (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2010 (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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 27. Dana boomer (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Building projects in Ajman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category and I don't consider this as a part of a series since there are only two other categories. Article has ample categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as part of the 'by emirate' category structure and populate. Hmains (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2010 (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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Detroit in fiction to Category:Detroit, Michigan in fiction

Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters from Detroit to Category:Fictional characters from Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Films set in Detroit to Category:Films set in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Television shows set in Detroit to Category:Television shows set in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Detroit to Category:Video games set in Detroit, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: To match parent categories Category:Culture of Detroit, Michigan, Category:People from Detroit, Michigan, Category:Films set in the United States by city, and Category:Video games set in the United States by city, as well as countless sister categories. - Dravecky (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Detroit is simply Detroit without the state. As such the categories should reflect that. If anything it is the other pages that should be renamed. The same goes for the other cities listed here. PeRshGo (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match all other US city, state categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the goal is consistency then the category should match the article name. Otherwise there are are hundreds of articles you would have to change to include region name. PeRshGo (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The goals are consistency and accuracy which is why Detroit is in Category:Detroit, Michigan and all the subcats should match that parent category. This issue has been long debated and the overwhelming consensus has been City, State categories for US cities, even when the city alone is enough to identify the article. I'm only doing mop-up here, not making a radical overhaul. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to follow the pattern found for other cities which find themselves in this WP status. Hmains (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Chicago to Category:Video games set in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Dallas to Category:Video games set in Dallas, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Indianapolis to Category:Video games set in Indianapolis, Indiana

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Los Angeles to Category:Video games set in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Miami to Category:Video games set in Miami, Florida

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in San Diego to Category:Video games set in San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in San Francisco to Category:Video games set in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Video games set in Seattle to Category:Video games set in Seattle, Washington

Nominator's rationale: To match parent categories Category:Chicago, Illinois in fiction, Category:Culture of Dallas, Texas, Category:Culture of Indianapolis, Indiana, Category:Los Angeles, California in fiction, Category:Culture of Miami, Florida, Category:Culture of San Diego, California, Category:Culture of San Francisco, California, and Category:Culture of Seattle, Washington, as well as their respective main categories and countless sister categories. - Dravecky (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match all other US city, state categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the goal is consistency then the category should match the article name. Otherwise there are are hundreds of articles you would have to change to include region name. PeRshGo (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The goals are consistency and accuracy which is why Dallas is in Category:Dallas, Texas and all the subcats should match that parent category. This issue has been long debated and the overwhelming consensus has been City, State categories for US cities, even when the city alone is enough to identify the article. I'm only doing mop-up here, not making a radical overhaul. - Dravecky (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for inter-category consistency at least. It's the best we can hope for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 26 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Annual events in Boston to Category:Annual events in Boston, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: To match parent categories Category:Culture of Boston, Massachusetts and Category:Visitor attractions in Boston, Massachusetts, and its many sister categories therein; also to match main category Category:Boston, Massachusetts. I acknowledge that the primary article is still at Annual events in Boston but that is also in need of renaming. - Dravecky (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match all other US city, state categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the goal is consistency then the category should match the article name. Otherwise there are are hundreds of articles you would have to change to include region name. PeRshGo (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The goals are consistency and accuracy which is why Boston is in Category:Boston, Massachusetts and all the subcats should match that parent category. The use of City, State categories for US cities, even when the city alone is enough to identify the article, is a widely-held consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Boston ought to refer to an English town in Lincolnshire from which the American city took its name. Currently (and improperly) that article is about the American city. A similar problem arose with Birmingham categories. The article is at Birmingham, but the categories are at "Birmingham, England", so that they do not inadvertently collect Birmingham, AL articles. Accordingly also rename article to Boston, Massachusetts. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The place to discuss renaming articles is not this page and, um, the US city is about 20 times the size of the English city, not even including the metro area, so such am article renaming is unlikely to find consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This is really speediable since the parent category is Category:Boston, Massachusetts. I'm tired of hearing how the Boston in England should reside at Boston because it was established before the American city. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 26 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Landmarks in Amarillo to Category:Landmarks in Amarillo, Texas

Nominator's rationale: To match main article Amarillo, Texas, parent category Category:Economy of Amarillo, Texas, and its sister categories therein (including Category:Education in Amarillo, Texas and Category:Sports in Amarillo, Texas); also to match the other categories in parents Category:Amarillo, Texas and Category:Landmarks in Texas (including sitster category Category:Landmarks in Dallas, Texas). Dravecky (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match all other US city, state categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the goal is consistency then the category should match the article name. Otherwise there are are hundreds of articles you would have to change to include region name. PeRshGo (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is Amarillo, Texas and it's in Category:Amarillo, Texas. All the subcats should match that parent category. The use of City, State categories for US cities, even when the city alone is enough to identify the article, is a widely-held consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent article/category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BES islands to Category:Caribbean Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Caribbean Netherlands seems to become the general name to indicate the 3 special municipalities of the Netherlands. After calling them BES-islands for some time, now the main article has changed following discussion at Talk:Caribbean Netherlands; and therefore I think the category name be changed should too... L.tak (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:14, 20 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nanking Massacre deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Loaded and BLP violating cat filled will OR, I've checked about half of these and they are predominantly unsourced. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we have Category:Holocaust deniers. If it is unsourced, then uncat that article. If some are sourced, then they are properly categorized. 76.66.198.128 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like a valid category. BLP concerns with individual articles not being sourced should be addressed on an individual basis - not by deleting the entire category. --DAJF (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although there are Category:Holocaust deniers and Category:Armenian Genocide deniers, why is Category:Nanking Massacre deniers not OK? In Japan, there are a lot of deniers such conservative politicians and users on the Internet. --Hatto0467 (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a valid categorization. Address sourcing concerns with individual articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same as above, given Category:Holocaust deniers. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Nihonjoe. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anonymous-Registered Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete - Don't see how this category benefits the encyclopedia. Can't think of a use for a category meant for searching for users who sometimes edit anonymously. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:15, 19 October 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Faithful Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale - Delete - Linked to a userbox stating "This user values faith over reason". No legitimate encyclopedic purpose. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing, arbitrary, and of no value to Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A grouping of users who share this extremely general philosophical leaning does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:14, 20 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Chairpersons of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee to Category:Chairpersons of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per naming conventions, we can remove the word "former" from this name since categories include former and present people that have held the position. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:28, 20 October 2010 (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: Split. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regionalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Split. To match the articles Regionalism (politics) and Regionalism (international relations) and to avoid confusion. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Could be useful to avoid any possible confusion. Adrian (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of clerics to Category:Lists of clergies

Nominator's rationale: Per main category--Category:Clergy--and its other subcats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Clergy is already plural and therefore the proposal should be Category:Lists of clergy. I'm neutral on the proposal as either term (clerics/clergy) is technical and both are found in the category tree as are other terms such as Imams and Lamas. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed -- the target should be Category:Lists of clergy. In my view, clergy is a collective noun rather than a plural. the use of a collective noun is appropriate for a category. I am also neutral. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Clergy is the collective name but an individual is a cleric or a clergyman. The related article is Cleric, with Clergyman as a redirect, so the current name seems appropriate. Cjc13 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for reasons described by Cjc13. --Lquilter (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Execration text people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete was proposed, technical nomination found doing cleanup. This was included in a previous discussion. While that resulted in a merge, this category remained tagged. Since the close did not mention this one and there was little discussion, I'm bring this one here for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I know little ofn the subject, and do not understand the relationship of these Pharaohs to the texts, but it seems to me that they are a valid group who ought either to be listifired in Execration texts or the category should be renamed to indicate their relationship to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at the 4 articles, only 1 mentions the subject of the category. So, the other three can be removed from the category as not supported by the articles text. With no inclusion criteria spelled out in the category and the main article stating that these texts are listing enemies of the Pharaoh, I would expect to find lists here and not people. So delete and if we ever have articles on the texts, then we can recreate. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Development projects to Category:Planned developments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The development projects here are really planned developments which is one of the parent categories. There is no need for this extra level of navigation. Also we don't have an article on development projects so what should be included here is open to discussion and thus subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no article for Category:Planned developments and many other categories in this particular category tree. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No objections but then the category must be stripped of projects already completed or projects already under construction. "Planning" ends when real money goes out. I'd strongly suggest sorting out the daughter Category:Construction projects first. East of Borschov 11:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I have been though most of Category:Construction projects and removed the completed ones. Did I miss some? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're coming and going all the time! Icon Towers are not completed yet, but quite close ("When completed by the end of 2010..."). V3 Tower "is expected to be completed in 2008" (it was indeed). East of Borschov 02:50, 19 October 2010 (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/no consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is already some discussion of this on the category's talk page. However, "hindutva" seems to be the more specific and thus better word for the material being considered for inclusion in the category. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Please see discussion here to better understand the points for each side. Silverseren^C 18:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Shiva has convinced me quite eloquently that the title should remain as it is. Silverseren^C 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename suggestion of Hindutva terrorism, suggest rename to an alternative like Category:Hindu-related terrorism (I know it sounds weird and may be mincing words, but its one suggestion anyway). (1) I notice in the afore-mentioned discussion that Hindutva is identified as a political/nationalist and not really religious ideology. This is a subjective interpretation - there are cases of attacks on Christian and Muslim missionaries, which have more of a "protect-the-religion" motivation than a nationalist one. There are episodes of attacks on Dalits that are about the caste conflict. In these cases, the motivations of the perpetrators may be a more religious Hindutva or nothing to do with Hindutva at all and just caste prejudice. (2) It is also short-sighted, because you may end up needing this very category in the near future if things happen in other countries with Hindu populations - for example with the Bangabhumi movement in Bangladesh. (3) I would also cite example of Category:Islamic terrorism - this encompasses all the possible Islam-related motivations of terrorist groups, from those seeking to revive the caliphate, get rid of all non-Muslim military forces in the Middle East, exterminate non-Muslims and Islamic sects like Shiaism and Ahmadiyyas, etc. in dozens of countries across the world. The various ideologies of terrorist groups cannot be easily categorized, so they are linked by the common element, Islam, to simplify matters. (4) The groups you may include in this category may claim to follow Hindutva, but they may be condemned by mainstream Hindutva organizations who will say they are not following Hindutva, that there is nothing in Hindutva that calls for terrorism and so these groups should not be associated with Hindutva - if you do so through such a category, you are basically accepting one POV over another. Shiva (Visnu) 23:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that it should, instead of being renamed to something akin to "Hindu-related terrorism", keeping it as Hindu Terrorism is better because of the related Categories being named Christian Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism? Silverseren^C 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can stay as it is, but I do ponder over whether or not all of those categories should incorporate "related" rather than direct branding - "Christianity-related", "Hinduism-related." This is because the allegiance/adherence of these groups to Christianity/Hinduism is almost always disputed, and may possibly involve political/nationalist ideologies that may convulute the definition. I don't support mincing words or even political correctness on Wikipedia, but I think there is some merit to an argument for "Hinduism-related terrorism." I don't think its a big deal, though. Shiva (Visnu) 13:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice (first choice) or Rename to "Saffron terror" - There is no use for the category in the status quo because no investigations have been concluded that have named any "Hindu" group responsible for any terrorist attack. Shiva raises a good point about the untenability of "Hindutva terror", since the groups allegedly named in terrorist attacks like Abhinav Bharat are extremely shadowy, with no real glimpses of their ideology save a rabid anti-Muslim bent. A delete is preferable to a rename, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for speculation, but if that is not palatable, with Saffron terror at least we have a name for the attacks perpetrated by right wing groups like Abhinav Bharat. I voted delete in the Saffron terror AFD, but that was because of the logic of the first sentence of this paragraph; if any investigations are concluded showing a Saffron hand behind the attacks, then this category deserves the rename, if not delete without prejudice.Pectore^talk 14:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, I think Saffron terror is not a good idea at all - for one, Saffron is a color of great religious significance, not only to Hindus but also Sikhs and Buddhists; its very vague/general because its application and notability is far greater in many aspects of these religions, color and in food than politics/violence. For most non-Indians and non-South Asians, Saffron doesn't mean anything more than the spice or flower at the very least - they will actually have to go through several articles on Hinduism and Hindu nationalism itself to understand what that's about. It would be akin to calling Communist terrorism "Hammer and sickle terrorism," or "Crucifix terrorism" for Christian terrorism - actually, those are far easier to identify than "Saffron". Shiva (Visnu) 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well Red terror already exists. Its a phrase used to specifically categorize a string of executions that occurred under the Bolsheviks. Under the same vein, Saffron terror (if anyone is actually convicted, which still no one has) would be the recent string of anti-Muslim attacks. "Saffron brigade" is a fairly well known term used by the Indian media to describe those that advocate for "Hindu nationalism". The media already uses "Saffron terror" to refer to the hypothesis that Abhinav Bharat and related groups (whose ideologies, apart from Islamophobia are nearly impossible to discern) and related groups were behind recent anti-Muslim bombings in India. Also, Red is a sacred color in China. Any nomenclature is going to be offensive to someone, but Saffron terror is the most accurate because it refers to specific string of anti-Muslim attacks allegedly perpetrated by right-wing groups, whose allegiance to Hindu nationalism, let alone Hinduism is entirely suspect. However in the status quo, this discussion is moot because there is literally no article (apart from the main Saffron terror) that can be placed in the article due to the total lack of evidence and convictions. That's why I'd suggest a rename only if someone actually gets convicted, otherwise this category should be deleted without prejudice.Pectore^talk 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Red Terror and Saffron Terror are both legit names - for articles, not categories. A category will contain a wide-range of articles of multiple facts and interpretations. When you write an article, you can balance POVs and facts, you can argue about the term's usage - you can't do that with categories because it is classification, not a source of data by itself. My point about usage of "Saffron" is not about whether it is offensive or not - it is about what someone identifies with that, what different topics, separate from the category in question, are associated with that term. I also don't agree about your point on convictions - judicial decisions almost always disputed; for every conviction, there is some govt. or agency saying the trial wasn't fair, etc. There are an endless series of appeals that carry on for years. A group's allegiance may be suspect, then why connote Saffron, a term that anyway means far more and wide than an association with Hinduism-related terrorism, to identify it? The only reason anybody connects "Saffron" with these terror groups is because it has some meaning in Hinduism. All your points are quite credible, but they are more suited for a case about an article than a category, which has to be very general, simple and NPOV. Shiva (Visnu) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the obvious choice of recourse for this category is delete, because Saffron terror is inherently political, and non-religious. Even if you do not find it legitimate, the media (which uses the term widely) finds it acceptable as nomenclature to describe possible related acts of rightwing terror (assuming any rightwing groups have been found guilty of the attacks, which they have not). Hindu terror is an unacceptable term for groups whose ideologies lack any connection to Hinduism the religion. Saffron terror (assuming that some rightwing group is found responsible) can be easily filed under categories like Category:Far right politics in India, Category:Nationalist terrorism, and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Nobody again has been found guilty of any crimes, and impugning them of Wikipedia is an absolutely unacceptable form of recourse for the mere spurious benefit of "categorization". NPOV does not cease to exist when you leave the articlespace. The classification in this case is entirely problematic, because it is based completely on speculation. Even if the judicial process is disputed, the results of such a judicial process are the only tangible evidence that can be used to discern who the conclusive perpetrators are. As such, in the status quo the category is going to remain empty because a) the alleged attacks were not done in the name of "Hinduism" b) there is no evidence Abhinav Bharat or any rightwing groups were responsible and c) because speculation is not an acceptable basis for categorization.Pectore^talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti Human Black Metal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems to be both a genre and a category made up by the creating editor. Currently has one article, and no mention in the main Black metal article. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence exists for notability of parent article and no sources are provided to support the connection for the article included. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the promotional label of a band of questionable notability, not an actual distinct genre of music. - Dravecky (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:District of Columbia elections into Category:Washington, D.C. elections, as “Washington, D.C. is the correct format, and has most of the articles (in subcategories). Hugo999 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this category stores articles about the election of representatives in the House for the District of Columbia, not Washington city council elections. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom as Category:United States presidential elections in Washington, D.C. and Category:United States House of Representatives elections in the District of Columbia are already proper subcats of Category:Federal elections in Washington, D.C. and the related articles are split needlessly between two variant category names. - Dravecky (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2010 (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.