< February 11	February 13 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Launcher applications to Category:Application launchers

Nominator's rationale: Rename per common usage and main article Application launcher. Pnm (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Keyboard software to Category:Keyboard-sharing software

Nominator's rationale: Rename to narrow focus, after recent split to Category:Keyboard layout software. Pnm (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Web Services tools to Category:Web service development tools

Nominator's rationale: Rename for capitalization consistency with Category:Web services, and terminology consistency with Category:Computer programming tools. Pnm (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Only-platform free software to Category:Single-platform free software

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with parent Category:Single-platform software. Pnm (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support to match parent category: Category:Single-platform software. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Personal digital assistant software by platform to Category:Software by operating system

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There's no benefit to this anachronistically termed extra layer between Category:Software by operating system and the two child categories. Pnm (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Software components to Category:Component-based software engineering

Nominator's rationale: Rename for precision, per main article Component-based software engineering, and to clarify that it's not for articles like Physlet, NMath, or DHTMLEdit. Pnm (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus yet to merge but revisit if necessary; consensus to Rename to Category:Input method editor. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:IME to Category:Input methods

Nominator's rationale: Merge duplicate categories. Pnm (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment "input method" is highly ambiguous, and wrongly named (as is the article). 184.144.164.14 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wrongly named? --Pnm (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Input method editor. IME stands for Input Method Editor, whih was the original name of the article now called Input method. The category seems to relate just to IME's and should probably be a subcategory of Category:Input methods. Cjc13 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is an input method different from an input method editor? --Pnm (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Per the article "the term input method editor refers to the actual program that allows an input method to be used". Cjc13 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • OK. Category:IME has two entries. Are there any more articles that belong? I still support merging if the subcategory only has two entries (and no main article). --Pnm (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 20.. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:List of Films Shot Near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada to Category:Films shot in British Columbia

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to parent, no need to have such a specific category for 2 articles. Tassedethe (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment, would a more widely-scoped Category:List of films shot on Vancouver Island be useful? I also note that if the consensus is to keep, the capitalisation will need fixing. Grutness...wha? 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think you'd want that to be Category:Films shot on Vancouver Island. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hah! Very true. What GO said. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • this suggests that there are quite a few -and we havfe articles on a lot of them. Grutness...wha? 21:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: Nomination withdrawn. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Publishing software to Category:Publishing industry software

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify purpose and avoid listing software with "publishing" features like FORscene and Clesh. Pnm (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks not like a rename but the removal of the original category and the addition of a different one. You don't seem to have said why you think there shouldn't be a Publishing software category, or for that matter why you think that FORscene and Clesh are not used by the publishing industry when they are used to publish a lot of video. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Renames" of categories are always achieved by removal (deletion) of the original category and the addition (creation) of a new one. Categories can't be moved to new names in the way WP articles are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see I didn't make myself clear. I am not asking about the technical means to rename a category, but rather pointing out that this is not a rename but a swap of one category with a different one. It is like renaming a category "books" to one of "beautiful music". Obviously, one could do this, and it would result in many items in the "book" category being removed, as they would not fit "beautiful music" category - but it might be worth explaining why the old category was no longer needed. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an interesting point. I can see the value of keeping Category:Publishing software as a container category and adding subcategories at some point. --Pnm (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Withdrawn by nom. --Pnm (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pi software to Category:Pi-related software

Nominator's rationale: Rename for precision. It's not software by a company called Pi, for example, or for an operating system called Pi, or written in a programming language called Pi. Pnm (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Sadads (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose merging Category:Childhood software to Category:Software for children

Nominator's rationale: Merge to remove duplication. Pnm (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vista Ultimate Extras to Category:Windows Ultimate Extras

Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article Windows Ultimate Extras. Pnm (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing to Category:Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing projects

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Each article is an individual project except for BOINC Credit System and BOINC client–server technology, which are project-related, and the main. There's no need to double-list these projects in Category:Distributed computing projects, and this rename clarifies that point. (The other alternative is creating a separate subcategory for BOINC projects, but without additional general articles, it doesn't make sense to do that.) Pnm (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bank of America sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 9#Category:ExxonMobil sponsorships. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Same reasons as for the previous discussions: non-defining and ephemeral. Mangoe (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Personal identification to Category:Personal identification documents

Nominator's rationale: Rename to remove ambiguity. Main article was Personal identification which redirects to Identity document. Category:Identity documents is another possible name. It's more concise but seems less clear. Pnm (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Identity software to Category:Access control software

Nominator's rationale: Rename to more precise term. Computer access control is described at Access_control#Computer_security. "Identity software" is rarely used. Pnm (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New parent category: Category:Computer access control. --Pnm (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: administrative close; categories deleted until at least the resolution of the relevant DRV. These categories should not have been created until this DRV has been resolved. If Category:Persons convicted of fraud does not exist and is currently being debated, users cannot get around CFD/DRV results and process simply by making categories even more narrowly specific. Both the nominated category and the target category were created while the DRV was ongoing. We can assume per WP:AGF that the category creators were simply unaware of the ongoing processes relating to this category tree. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I will not remove the articles from the deleted categories at this stage. (To be clear, the categories could be re-created after the DRV closes, at which time they may be nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming as usual. The only difference is that at that point, we will have the DRV results to assist in the discussion of where to go from here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

UPDATE: User:Scott MacDonald, the creator of Category:British politicians convicted of fraud, has let is be known that he is unable or unwilling to hold back on re-creating that category until the DRV is closed. Since this failure to abide by an administrative decision defeats the purpose temporarily closing this discussion, I am restoring the nominated category and have  Relisted this discussion on 2011 FEB 14 CFD. It would be helpful if users, especially other admins, could respect administrative decisions such as the one made above, but apparently that is too much to ask. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Propose merging Category:Scottish politicians convicted of fraud to Category:British politicians convicted of fraud

Nominator's rationale: The patent category contains only six entries - there is simply no need to subdivide this any further. The subcategory ends up with only one entry Jim Devine who was a member of the British House of Commons serving for a Scottish constituency.

The subcategory was created by User:Mais oui!, a long-time Scottish Nationalist POV-pusher. I've no problem with Scottish categories when we're subdividing a large category for aid of navigation, but we do it for the reader's navigation not for ideological or nationalist reasons. Else will we subcategorise by Scottish counties too? A reader is more likely to be helped by the very few British politicians who have been convicted of fraud being found in one place. Scott Mac 15:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and populate. Per WP:OC#SMALL small categories are acceptable where they are part of wider scheme, in this case categorising Scottish people separately. Scotland has a long political history, and I'm sure that this country has other political fraudsters who can in due course be added to the category.
  I don't always agree with Mais Oui, but the nominator's assumption of bad faith by the category creator is completely inappropriate for a CFD nomination; the only POV-pushing I see here is the nominator's bizarre insistence that creating a small Scottish category can be done only "for ideological or nationalist reasons". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Populate with what? I'm unconvinced that there's a string of Scottish politicians with fraud convictions - can you provide some examples? The correct thing to do would be to create this if and when a lot of politicians with fraud convictions began to fill the British category and subdivision would then aid navigation. I say there's nothing to populate this with (you might find another one or two examples, but I can't think of any). As for the POV-pushing - the creator goes about replacing "British" with "Scottish" at every opportunity, in fields he doesn't otherwise edit (see his contributions for evidence) I don't think it is assuming anything much to suggest ideological motivation.--Scott Mac 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you think that labelling a Scottish person or entity as "Scottish" is POV-pushing, then I think that's more of reflection on your POV than on anyone else's. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Huh? No, I didn't say that - I'm Scottish and proud of it. However, expunging all mention of Britain is POV pushing. Categories should be worked out on navigational and pragmatic reasons of utility to the user, and not because someone thinks Scottish must always be used in preference to British. As I say, subdividing British into Scottish Welsh and English is often useful - it just isn't here. Devine, for instance, was a member of the British parliament - not the Scottish one.--Scott Mac 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • If you believe that an editor is "expunging all mention of Britain", then you should open an RFC/U, provide evidence of this "expunging", and accompanied by an explanation of why you think that each incidence is inappropriate. In this case, you are mistaken; Devine was not a member of the Parliament of Great Britain, which ceased to exist 210 years ago, but of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He is, however, a Scottish politician; a Scottish person elected by a Scottish constituency to sit in the UK Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Of course he's a Scottish politician, that's beside the point. He's also British, European, from Livingston and more besides. The point is whether it is good practice to take a category of six entries and subdivide to create a category of one entry - when there's little evidence that the category will ever have more than one (or maybe two or three if you can find the - can you?) people in it. Nationality ought to be beside the point, pragmatism and use of navigation is the point. Can you explain how such fractured sub-divisions are useful for navigation?--Scott Mac 18:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Scott, dividing categories by nationality is routine across all sorts of biographical topics, and by doing so consistently we keep a category tree which interlocks logically and neatly. You appear to have some sort of objection to categorising Scottish people in this way, and it would be helpful if you explained by why you are so keen to single out Scotland as an exception to the rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - this nomination really is rich. I only created the category in the first place cos Doc Glasgow kept removing Category:Scottish fraudsters from the Jim Devine article. The formulation "convicted of fraud" was meant as a compromise. Doc Glasgow seems determined to remove Devine from all subcats of Cat:Scottish criminals. And it really is profoundly disappointing that an Admin is being allowed to so clearly abuse WP:NPA, which explicitly disallows attacks on any User on the grounds of their political persuasion ("some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor". Not just that, but I entirely reject his description of me as a "Scottish nationalist". I am nothing of the sort. In my long experience here at :en Wikipedia, it is the British nationalists who persistently and blatantly breach WP:NPOV, not the Welsh, Scottish, English or Irish nationalists. Some articles/categories are plain laughable with their Brit Nat propaganda, but no Admin ever bats an eyelid. Go figure. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I added the cat Category:British politicians convicted of fraud so I'm hardly trying to cover up the crime. You needlessly and pointlessly subdivided it. That's all. (And it isn't a personal attack to make an observation on your long established editing pattern - I'm not attacking your politics, merely saying that they should not be the motivation.)--Scott Mac 16:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your statements are so full of blatant factual errors that they make a good collander. As just one small example, when Jim Devine sttod for election, he chose to describe himself as the "Scottish Labour Party Candidate". And yet you are trying to contend that he is somehow not a "Scottish" politician?!? Simply risible. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are missing the point. Of course he's a Scottish politician (and he's a Livingston politician) and he's a British Politician - and no doubt a European too. But there's little pragmatic reason to stick him in a box of one article (which is never likely to have many more than one article in it), when the parent category is also appropriate and has only six articles in it. This has nothing to do with how with how we describe him, and everything to do with useful navigation.--Scott Mac 16:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Devine isn't the first Scottish politician to be convicted of fraud (in my memory there was a senior Strathclyde councillor convicted in the mid 70s and a stream of investigations in Dundee). There were also various MPs/MSPs who had "difficulties" with office expenses around 10 years ago and were maybe fortunate to be allowed to pay back without the legal consequences that the current crop have getting. So even if it has one entry just now, I'd expect additions in the future. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does the councillor have a wikipedia bio? People who have been investigated or have had "difficulties" don't count. We are talking about people notable enough for a Wikipedia bio, who have actual convictions. I suspect there will be a maximum of two (maybe three).--Scott Mac 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge for now but recreate if other entries are found The only current entry is Jim Devine, who was a member of the British Parliament not the Scottish Parliament. It's much better to describe and categories by the level served at. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)#Reply[reply]
• Merge - as above. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:National Labour politicians to Category:National Labour (UK) politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename To disambiguate the British politicians of the National Labour Organisation from politicians of the other parties (in other countries) called National Labour Party. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom to disambiguate. (And just a note that awhile ago I nominated this at the speedy section for renaming to Category:National Labour Organisation politicians, which was opposed for a good reason which I can't remember, if anyone is considering suggesting that option.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I hadn't spotted the aborted speedy, or I'd have mentioned it in the nom, so thanks for pointing it out. I've just done some burrowing, and here is the withdrawal of the speedy for the record. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:National Labour politicians to Category:National Labour Organisation politicians — C2A/C2C, per parent Category:National Labour Organisation and main article National Labour Organisation Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The normal naming guidelines are good and appropriate but there may be a case for an exception here. National Labour was a very weak organisation and did not formally exist until after the first election it contested in 1931. That the formal body was known as 'National Labour Organisation' (rather than 'National Labour Party') was not widely known to the public. Most of the MPs were elected on their own merits and because of local support, rather than backing from the centre (see the special note in 'Dictionary of Labour Biography' vol XIII sub Elton for some comment about the personalities involved). Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment as creator and populator of the category. I have no objection to the renaming; it seems reasonable that there will be articles about politicians from parties called 'National Labour' other than the National Labour Organisation, although they are more likely actually to be called the 'National Labour Party' as this one wasn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rename per nom Having read quite a lot on the period National Labour existed for I can support the observation that it is very rare for the National Labour Organisation to be mentioned at all in sources, even in relation to National Labour politicians. Naming the politicians as such will confuse far more than clarify. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 to Category:Alien invasions in fiction. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alien invasions to Category:Alien invasion fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Currently, the category includes only fictional retellings of Alien invasions, and the category's name implies actual invasions vs fictional discussion of, Sadads (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, but shouldn't it be "Category:Alien invasions in fiction"?? -- œ^™ 13:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there is Category:Invasion literature, so I thought it would be appropriate to follow that naming scheme, Sadads (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose that's redundant. Every person in the world, no matter culture, literacy level or anything else, is aware that there has never been any real alien invasion, and that a group of "Alien invasions" will be a group of fictional stories seen in the media. There are some things about aliens that may be concealed or unknown, and that may need this clarification: first contacts or UFO crashings may be concealed, extraterrestrial worlds or civilizations may exist but be beyond human knowledge. An alien invasion is not among them, the mere idea of what is an invasion (a military attack to seize control of a territory) rules out secrecy completely. MBelgrano (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom or, probably better, to Category:Alien invasion in fiction to follow standard naming procedure for calling fiction "fiction". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support "alien invasion" of Mexicans over the southern border would not be ficitional. Neither is the invasion of invasive alien species into sensitive habitats. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone who reads "Alien invasion" anywhere will think about extraterrestrial stuff, not about foreigners or ecology. By the way, if the category is renamed it would make more sense to use "fictional alien invasions", as it is for works including such themes, not about the theme itself (which would have articles such as "fictional spaceship" or "fictional extraterrestrial", or similar). But, again, that's redundant. Unlike Fictional wars, there are no real alien invasions to talk about, it's entirely a topic developed in fiction with no real-life examples, and everybody is fully aware of that. To remark that alien invasions are fictional is to be very condescendent with the reader MBelgrano (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Anyone who reads 'Alien invasion' anywhere will think about extraterrestrial stuff, not about foreigners or ecology." Have you spoken with anyone over the age of 65 from Arizona lately? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Alien invasions in fiction, or failing that, per nom. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Augustana College people to Category:Augustana College (South Dakota) people

Rename Category:Augustana College alumni to Category:Augustana College (South Dakota) alumni

Nominator's Rationale: This category is a subcategory of the college category with the state specific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Chinese mobile phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one entry at present. Mobile phone industry in China is more useful. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 using ((db-author)); non-admin closure. A category with only three entries is a poor aid to navigation. The non-notability of the publisher was irrelevant to the result. HairyWombat 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Category:Books by Buckland Publications Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: KeepDelete. This Category is currently empty. However, until a day or two ago it contained four entries. The question is, is four enough in this case? If the consensus of the discussion is that it is then I will restore the Category's entries. And if not, not. When I created the Category in 2007 I expected it to gradually fill, but that no longer looks likely. So, is four enough in this case? HairyWombat 05:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. There is no article on the actual publisher so the category is not notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment. I can not find this policy in the guidelines anywhere. Perhaps you can point me to it? Also, since when did categories have to be notable? Categories are an aid to navigation. HairyWombat 06:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It sort of follows that if there is no article for the publisher that there is no need for a category. The categories follow from articles. If there is no article or set of articles on a topic there is no need for a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My question above still stands. Why does an aid to navigation need to be notable? There is some step in your logic, here, which defeats me. HairyWombat 15:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. We generally do not have categories for book publishers, song producers, record labels, etc. for entities that do not themselves have articles on WP. (There is currently no guideline that states this, but this has been the approach taken in previous CFDs.) If the book publisher itself is not notable, there is not much reason to have a category for the books published by the non-notable entity. I figured this was non-controversial, so I emptied it, but have now put the articles back in it. (There were only 3 articles in it when I came across it.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment. Thank you for pointing out that the Category only had three entries, not four. My mistake. Categories are aids to navigation. I look forward to reading your explanation of why an aid to navigation needs to be notable. HairyWombat 15:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't think I said that "an aid to navigation needs to be notable". What I did say is that if the book publisher itself is not notable, then there is not much reason to have a category for the books published by the non-notable entity. Yes, categories are an aid to navigation, but they are intended to be an aid for navigation within Wikipedia's contents. If there is no article about the book publisher, there's little sense aiding navigation within that topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You statements don't make any sense to me. You agree that categories are aids to navigation, and you also state that a category of books published by a non-notable publisher should be deleted. If there is a difference between these statements and "an aid to navigation needs to be notable" then it escapes me. The reason for having such a category is that it can allow users to find other books published by the same publisher within Wikipedia's contents [your emphasis]. Whether the publisher is notable is irrelevant for this navigation. Also, above, you state that you are not following any guideline in this. If you feel there should be such a guideline then propose it, and let it be discussed. (If such a discussion exists somewhere, please point me to it.) HairyWombat 05:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm sorry you don't understand. What you may be missing from my reasoning relates to the fact that an article about "Buckland Publications Limited" is not part of Wikipedia's content. Essentially, it's a non-notable publisher. Thus categorizing books by that publisher amounts to trivia, essentially. You are free to disagree, but you can't make the claim that others' views are not supported by editing guidelines when you don't even seem understand to understand the claims being made. And anyway—many, many decisions are made on WP by consensus reached through discussion, and deletion of categories that sort by publishers/distributors etc. that lack a WP articles are of this type. There doesn't have to be a black letter rule that says it must or must not be done for it to be done or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You write, "... many, many decisions are made on WP by consensus reached through discussion". Please point me towards the prior discussion of this convention. You (and others) are acting as though a guideline exists. It does not, and you have agreed that it does not. You are therefore acting outside of the guidelines. And you are correct, I do not understand your logic; this should alert you to the possibility that it is false logic. I also object to your emptying of catagories, thus making then eligible for deletion without any discussion. If you feel a category should be deleted then cite it for deletion and let it be discussed. To do otherwise is deletion by stealth, and so undermines the formal process of Cfd. I repeat, if you want a guideline to exist then propose it, and let it be discussed. What you are currently doing lacks transparency. HairyWombat 17:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are dozens and really I can't be bothered. It's not that important an issue to me for me to put in the effort and I have no need to "win" a discussion. I have gone through the work of reading hundreds of previous discussions, however; any user could do the same. I understand you disagree and you sound upset. I'd like to hear what others think. In the discussion linked to below by Mangoe, users have suggested that all categorization by book publisher may be overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Procedural comment Whatever the outcome of the notability discussion, this category could be affected by the conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 14#Category:Alfred A. Knopf books. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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: speedy rename per C2A. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Protestantism in United States to Category:Protestantism in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Grammar, convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.