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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Municipal seats of Region Hovedstaden
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Municipalities of Region Hovedstaden
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Snakes of the United States by state
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Region Sjælland
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Sjælland
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.
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.
Category:Region Syddanmark
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Syddanmark
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.
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.
Category:Region Nordjylland
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Nordjylland
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.
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.
Category:Region Midtjylland
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Midtjylland
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.
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.
Category:Region Hovedstaden
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Hovedstaden
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.
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.
Category:Wikipedia media requiring renaming
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.
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. —
ξxplicit20:52, 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.
Category:Eagle
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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lepidoptera food plant lists
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.
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.
Category:Johan Christian Claussen Dahl
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Singular albums
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.
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.
Category:World War II British minesweepers
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hunt class MCMVs
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 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.
Mine warfare vessels by navy
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Antisemitic propaganda
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.
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
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:
propagandanoun1 a the organized circulation by a political group, etc of doctrine, information, misinformation, rumour or opinion, intended to influence public feeling, raise public awareness, bring about reform, etc; b the material circulated in this way.
With a definition established, the key issue of dispute is apparent. As a term, 'propaganda' has two distinct sides to its definition; the relatively neutral (doctrine or information) and the decidedly not neutral (misinformation or rumour). This is at the heart of the delete view - labelling views as 'misinformation' or 'rumour' through categorisation would be a violation
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR, and
WP:BLP. Even if the application of this category was only intended in the sense of 'information' or 'doctrine', can this term ever escape its loaded connotations?
The keep argument seems to centre largely around the merits of proper sourcing. Provided
WP:RS can be satisfied then there is no reason that the category cannot be applied. This is proof against any concerns of NPOV - if a source which is reputable has called something propaganda, then the question of a POV or not does not arise - the source is reputable and its opinion respectable. This works for articles, why not for categories as well? Two clear strands of thought in collision - which is to be preferred?
To come to a proper conclusion, we have to consider the essential nature of categories. According to
WP:CAT, categories ought to "...be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects". In other words, from the very outset, there is an implication that an article's categorisations are objective and factual, free from controversy or doubt. As
WP:CAT goes on to say, "Categories appear without annotations or referencing, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate".
The question is, while
WP:RS is applicable to the question of whether an article ought to be added to a category, how does it impact on the creation/retention of categories of controversial name or scope? After considering the arguments I am persuaded that it does not. 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
WP:RS are not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of
WP:CAT. I am satisfied that policy beats guideline, that as a result this category should be Deleted, as indeed should all similar categories in
Category:Propaganda by interest.
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
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 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.
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.
Segunda División B seasons
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.
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. –
PeeJay11:01, 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.
Category:Chowdhury family
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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects
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.
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.
Category:Quasi-public entities
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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Planned airlines of New Zealand
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.
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.
Vogue categories
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.
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. —
ξxplicit06:37, 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.
Category:Mossberg
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Madison Dearborn
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panoz
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rhapsody albums
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Maps of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fortune
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Stage actors from Northern Ireland
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.
SupportCategory: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.
Category:Paulini songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paulini albums
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 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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Municipal seats of Region Hovedstaden
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Municipalities of Region Hovedstaden
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Snakes of the United States by state
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Region Sjælland
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Sjælland
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.
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.
Category:Region Syddanmark
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Syddanmark
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.
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.
Category:Region Nordjylland
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Nordjylland
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.
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.
Category:Region Midtjylland
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Midtjylland
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.
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.
Category:Region Hovedstaden
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.
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.
Category:People from Region Hovedstaden
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.
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.
Category:Wikipedia media requiring renaming
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.
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. —
ξxplicit20:52, 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.
Category:Eagle
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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lepidoptera food plant lists
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.
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.
Category:Johan Christian Claussen Dahl
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Singular albums
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.
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.
Category:World War II British minesweepers
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hunt class MCMVs
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 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.
Mine warfare vessels by navy
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Antisemitic propaganda
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.
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
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:
propagandanoun1 a the organized circulation by a political group, etc of doctrine, information, misinformation, rumour or opinion, intended to influence public feeling, raise public awareness, bring about reform, etc; b the material circulated in this way.
With a definition established, the key issue of dispute is apparent. As a term, 'propaganda' has two distinct sides to its definition; the relatively neutral (doctrine or information) and the decidedly not neutral (misinformation or rumour). This is at the heart of the delete view - labelling views as 'misinformation' or 'rumour' through categorisation would be a violation
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR, and
WP:BLP. Even if the application of this category was only intended in the sense of 'information' or 'doctrine', can this term ever escape its loaded connotations?
The keep argument seems to centre largely around the merits of proper sourcing. Provided
WP:RS can be satisfied then there is no reason that the category cannot be applied. This is proof against any concerns of NPOV - if a source which is reputable has called something propaganda, then the question of a POV or not does not arise - the source is reputable and its opinion respectable. This works for articles, why not for categories as well? Two clear strands of thought in collision - which is to be preferred?
To come to a proper conclusion, we have to consider the essential nature of categories. According to
WP:CAT, categories ought to "...be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects". In other words, from the very outset, there is an implication that an article's categorisations are objective and factual, free from controversy or doubt. As
WP:CAT goes on to say, "Categories appear without annotations or referencing, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate".
The question is, while
WP:RS is applicable to the question of whether an article ought to be added to a category, how does it impact on the creation/retention of categories of controversial name or scope? After considering the arguments I am persuaded that it does not. 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
WP:RS are not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of
WP:CAT. I am satisfied that policy beats guideline, that as a result this category should be Deleted, as indeed should all similar categories in
Category:Propaganda by interest.
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
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 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.
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.
Segunda División B seasons
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.
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. –
PeeJay11:01, 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.
Category:Chowdhury family
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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Often-populated Wikipedia category redirects
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.
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.
Category:Quasi-public entities
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.
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
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Planned airlines of New Zealand
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.
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.
Vogue categories
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.
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. —
ξxplicit06:37, 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.
Category:Mossberg
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Madison Dearborn
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Panoz
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rhapsody albums
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Maps of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fortune
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Stage actors from Northern Ireland
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.
SupportCategory: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.
Category:Paulini songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paulini albums
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 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.