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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Optimization to Category:Mathematical optimization

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word Optimization can be used outside the context of optimizing a mathematical function. Rename will mean articles like Windows tweaking won't end up being put in the Mathematical optimization category. Delaszk ( talk) 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename, sounds reasonable to me. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename, agreed. If I hear "optimization", I think of compilers, not math as such. - Denimadept ( talk) 22:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename as almost anything can be optimized. - Icewedge ( talk) 23:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename as an important distinction using a standard term. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Battles of Quantrill's Raid into Kansas of the American Civil War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Quantrill's raid currently redirects to Lawrence Massacre, which is the only article in this category; if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Massacre was the only notable raid led by Quantrill. If kept, rename to remove "of the American Civil War"; it is unnecessary due to the fact that there is no possible for confusion with another incident/campaign. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, we don't need a category that will only ever have one member. - Icewedge ( talk) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - While it's conceivable that an additional article might be written, dealing collectively with the "exploits" of Quantrill's raiders, I would agree that none of the other raids were sufficiently notable to justify stand-alone articles. In short, this category is simply too narrow to be useful. Cgingold ( talk) 23:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all per nom, although "ferries vis-à-vis foo" is indeed tempting. The fact that using "of" is an accepted convention for ships in general creates a strong presumption in favour of using "of" for categories of types of ships. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ferries in the United States to Category:Ferries of the United States

Nominator's rationale: and all state subcats. I am listing this for Plasma east, who has started unilaterally changing the category names, emptying the old categories, and speedily deleting the old categories out of process and without discussion. I'd like a more experienced category editor to look into the situation, thanks. See also: User talk:Plasma east#Category:Ferries in the United States renames. P.S. only the main category has been tagged. Katr67 ( talk) 19:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• I started an out-of-process manual rename yesterday that User:Katr67 alerted me to. Apologies for the screw up! Plasma east ( talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Ferries in the United States to Category:Ferries of the United States as per all other country categories under Category:Ferries. This and the following state categories is intended for articles on ferry vessels, therefore articles on ferry routes and ferry companies should not be placed under them. I intend to divide these out using Category:Ferry transport in Norway as a template.

• Category:Ferries in Kentucky to Category:Ferries of Kentucky The latter has already been created, so perhaps a redirect is appropriate?
• Category:Ferries in Louisiana to Category:Ferries of Louisiana
• Category:Ferries in Michigan to Category:Ferries of Michigan The latter has already been created, so perhaps a redirect is appropriate?
• Category:Ferries in Ohio to Category:Ferries of Ohio
• Category:Ferries in Puerto Rico to Category:Ferries of Puerto Rico
• Category:Ferries in Tennessee to Category:Ferries of Tennessee
• Category:Ferries in Texas to Category:Ferries of Texas
• Category:Ferries in Wisconsin to Category:Ferries of Wisconsin
• Category:Ferries in Ontario to Category:Ferries of Ontario

• Comment. 'Ferries of' seems so wrong when you read it so I think I'm likely to oppose that. Does 'of' mean they are owned by the State or operated by the state? I will agree that 'Ferries in' is not the best construct since the Washington State Ferries operates into Canada. However 'of' seems to be the standard for ships so probably would also be correct here. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I will also add that there is a second problem here. The main category says this is for the boats. However in some of these articles it is hard to find articles on the boats. They seem to be filled with companies. So some type of cleanup needs to be considered. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: "Ferries about", "Ferries around", "Ferries (preposition)"... - Denimadept ( talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Category:Ferries vis-à-vis the United States. I like it. Postdlf ( talk) 21:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • [[Category:Ferries around the United States]], maybe? :-D - Denimadept ( talk) 22:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per everywhere in Category:Ferries except NZ. Occuli ( talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Why the NZ exception? Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Exactly - "why the exception?" NZ will need to be CfD'd separately as being non-standard, though it's better to wait until this CfD's over. As will Bangkok, if this one is successful. Rename per nom, though I like the "vis-à-vis" idea :) Grutness... wha? 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. With a request for the closer to leave me a note to nominate NZ and Bangkok per this discussion if the rename goes through. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• There is also Category:Ferries in Ontario. I think that's the last one. Occuli ( talk) 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Am I reading the last one in the nomination list incorrectly? Looks like Category:Ferries in Ontario. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• So it does - I had assumed they were all US. Occuli ( talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose/Reverse merge --I would have through that Category:Ferries in the United States was the better description. Where a ferry crosses a border, it is legitimate to categise it as in both states or countries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• If I may, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country" details that all ships are categorized in this manner. These individual state articles, just like the country articles, should be for vessels used as ferries. If an article details a ferry route/service or a ferry company, then articles for those should be categorized as such. Plasma east ( talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Auto-Anti-Semitism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The article Auto-Anti-Semitism defines it as Jewish self-hatred. As such, this category is a recreation of Category:Self-hating Jew (alleged) and Category:Self-hating Jew, which have both been deleted: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 3#Category:Self-hating Jews (alleged) and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 26#Category:Self-hating Jew. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 16:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 16:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment The phenomenon refers to something well known but controversial. I would whether try to find another more neutral expression for the category or move the content to Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies. Ceedjee ( talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - and merge the main article to Self-hating Jew - there is a proposal in place. Not an appropriate subject for a category, as said in earlier debates. Johnbod ( talk) 18:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - I believe the technical term is "no-brainer". I'm thinking this probably qualifies for Speedy deletion as an attack category. Cgingold ( talk) 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• I wouldn't consider it an attack category because no living people have been put into it (yet), but it certainly has that potential. I removed Post-Zionism from the category out of WP:BLP concerns. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• keep. This category exsits in Hebrew Wikipedia, as you could see them pointing at people i've mentioned in the article, like Otto Weininger who's work, the Nazis used, as well as Nicholas Donin, who lead to the burning of the jewish liturgy, the Talmud. It's part of History, what can you do about it. "self hating jew" is more of a description, whereas "Auto-Anti-Semitis" is the academic name of it, and a bit more "gentle", so to speak. However, I'm not so sure they are exaclly related, as I know for sure, this term is the one in use among Jews, and the other is somewhat a discription of one or both. -- Shevashalosh ( talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• delete, mainly because of its potential as an attack category, but also its POV nature. The reasons given by the nominator are also compelling. The main article should be merged to Self-hating Jew. -- NSH001 ( talk) 11:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete: my main concern is a confusion between Jewish ethnicity and Jewish religion. A Jew who converts to another religion, and then persecutes adherents to Judaism (destroying the Talmud, for instance), should not be considered "Auto-Anti", since they're hating a group they no longer belong to. This seems to be the case with Donin, Pfefferkorn and possibly Weininger. That leaves Burros and the film based on him, really not enough for a category. — Ashley Y 09:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- 70.181.45.138 ( talk) 13:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete this category serves no useful purpose and would merely become a battlefield. There is no objective criterion for determining who should be included, and there is obvious potential for repeated BLP violations. Additionally, the term is almost unkown in English -- just 25 Google hits. The fact that it is a literal translation of a term used in Hebrew is irrelevant -- so is "The Middle Sea", but we still call it the Mediterranean in English Wikipedia. RolandR ( talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete, self-hating jew is essentially a slur. Should not be used for categorizations. -- Soman ( talk) 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete this very dangerous Pandora's box that could never be objective. IZAK ( talk) 07:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete per nom. If and when the systemic bias problem is resolved, the category can be recreated, taking into consideration the problem of historical/modern. Kbdank71 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Grand Orient de France ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No potential for growth. After removing articles on people who weren't notable for being Freemasons (the "Freemasons" cats were CfDed, and the Grand body cats shouldn't be used in lieu of that otherwise for a number of reasons), there are only two articles in the cat, one of which could go under "Freemasonry in France" and the other in the main cat. A compound issue is that there are two Grand Orients - a historical one and a modern one that are very different from one another, both of which had articles in the cat. I removed the historical ones and left the modern ones - otherwise the cast is vague and potentially misleading. MSJapan ( talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep A useful category that could be expanded when the systematic bias towards Anglo-Saxon freemasonry is overcome. This lodge is extremely important in non-UGLE freemasonry. JASpencer ( talk) 15:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Iranian fundamentalists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a dubious category. There is no universal definition who can be labeled as a fundamentalist. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm not convinced that fundamentalist is that vague a term in the context of Iranian politics. The current constitution and political regime can legitimately be labelled as islamist or fundamentalist. In many other contexts, "fundamentalist" is mostly a derogatory term (e.g. [1]) and most people would reject the label. But I think that in Iranian politics the term may simply refer to a political thought in agreement with the basic principles of the Iranian Revolution and although I'm not an expert on translating political terms in Farsi or Arabic, that may very well be the standard label of that group of thinkers. Now of course, that's still a fairly vague notion but it's arguably precise enough, certainly as precise as the other labels in Category:Iranian people by political orientation. Pichpich ( talk) 03:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It's really quite interesting that this should come up for debate just as the Washington Post Sunday Magazine runs a very lengthy, in-depth article about the long and contentious debate over the Wikipedia article on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who's not included in the category). Is there a connection, or is this a case of synchronicity? Cgingold ( talk) 12:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. With no main article, the introduction here leads the reader to History of fundamentalist Islam in Iran which in its introduction does not make the meaning here any clearer. If anything it may serve to make the picture murkier. Of course the reference for the classifications is written in Arabic which again does not help. Maybe there is a need for a category to be more specific, say something like Category:Iranian fundamentalist Islam practicers, but isn't that a triple intersection? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to something. I'm pretty sure there is a valid category here, but the category claims:

Iranian thinkers and politicians can be categorized into five classes[1]:

Anti-religious intellectuals Religious intellectuals Traditionists (just a typo??) Traditionalists Fundamentalists

Whereas the actual sibling categories in Category:Iranian people by political orientation use completely different terms including: Category:Iranian conservatives & Category:Iranian religious-nationalists. The people in this cat seem to be hard-line Khomenists, as opposed to the softer religious-nationalists. To me the emphasis should be on the politics rather the religious side. Have we asked the project? Specialist advice is needed I think. Johnbod ( talk) 14:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Iranian fundamentalist what? Fundamentalist Muslims? Fundamentalist Shi'ites? Fundamentalist nationalists? Fundamentalist cross-stitchers? — Ashley Y 10:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete --The category has no clear boundary, so that who is to be included is a matter of one editor's POV, with which another editor may disagree (a conflicting POV). Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Van Morrison songs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Van Morrison singles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Van Morrison songs. No other singers seem to differentiate between singles and songs, categorywise (but if they do, let me know). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom and per Category:Singles which states "Individual songs should not be listed here, nor should they get categories of the "Singles by (artist)" type. Instead, songs should all go under subcategories of category:Songs by artist." Occuli ( talk) 15:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename singles category per nom; delete albums category as duplicate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Phil Spector singles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Phil Spector albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Propose renaming Category:Phil Spector singles to Category:Songs produced by Phil Spector

Nominator's rationale: Misleading category name. This reads as if it's singles performed by Phil Spector, not produced by him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:Phil Spector albums (No need to merge.)

Nominator's rationale: Category is both improperly named and completely duplicative of Category:Albums produced by Phil Spector. Cgingold ( talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I know this is a bit unorthodox, but I took the liberty of adding this other category to this section. If there are objections to that, just let me know and I will move it to its own separate section. Cgingold ( talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename makes a lot of sense. -- Rodhull andemu 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Occuli ( talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• And delete Category:Phil Spector albums. Occuli ( talk) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Phil Spector singles per nom, consistent with all other sub-cats of Category:Songs by producer. Cgingold ( talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename singles per nom, and Delete albums per Cgingold. We seem to have a large "albums produced by" tree, but I can't see other singles cats. I suggest this one is made a subcat of the albums to keep them together. Johnbod ( talk) 13:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment As the nominator, I endorse the deletion of "Phil Spector albums" as a duplicate of "Albums produced by Phil Spector". I still hold to the renaming of "Phil Spector singles" to "Songs produced by Phil Spector" to match the other "songs produced by foo" categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Opposition to homosexuality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Fails NPOV as well as being too general catch all category with no main article (The article Opposition to homosexuality currently redirects to Societal attitudes toward homosexuality after what appears to have been a long debate about NPOV. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. and not a helpful category. -- Rodhull andemu 13:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I believe this is a recreation of a deleted category, but I don't remember the name of the previous incarnation. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Above, plus submitter's category description is itself contentiously non-encyclopaedic. -- EqualRights ( talk) 12:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - redundant to the existing Category:Homophobia which has been placed as a subcat. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: DELETE per WP:SNOW. Unanimous support for deletion, no conceivable argument for keeping. Postdlf ( talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Homosexuality People ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: poorly-worded title; those included in this category should already be included in more specific categories, e.g sub-categories of Category:LGBT actors. An additional category is confusing and unnecessary. Rodhull andemu 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

delete per nom. Title is grammatically poor. Papa November ( talk) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete as poorly-titled and redundant. -- JediLofty ^User _Talk 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete - the category title is confusing and grammatically makes no sense, but even so it duplicates, or creates potential to duplicate, information contained in existing categories Category:LGBT actors, Category:Gay actors, Category:Lesbian actors. Rossrs ( talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete - Badly worded, redundant -- SteveCrook ( talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete - Per all of the rationales already mentioned. User:Cooksi has outdone him/herself this time. This editor needs some mentoring on "What Wikipedia Is Not" as they have created numerous unneeded categories. MarnetteD | Talk 14:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete, as stated this is redundant and malformed. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per the snowball clause. Grammatically incorrect, and wholly redundant. -- Icarus ^{( Hi!)} 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging/renaming

• Category:Afro-Trinidadians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent
• Category:Trinidadian Chinese to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Chinese descent
• Category:Indo-Trinidadians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people of Indian descent

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu ( talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support per much precedent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Trinidadian people by ethnic or national origin to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people by ethnic or national origin

Nominator's rationale: as per Category:Trinidad and Tobago people etc. Mayumashu ( talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support per much precedent. | Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:LeToya Luckett ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Category:LeToya albums and Category:LeToya songs already cover everything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - another unnecessary eponymous category. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - another necessary parent category, containing 2 subcats, several articles, and media files not included in any of the subcats. Occuli ( talk) 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I was neutral on this, but there are more than enough media files for another sub-category -- which meets my personal standard of 3 sub-cats to warrant creating a parent category. Cgingold ( talk) 23:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:Chinese Nicaraguans to Category:Nicaraguans of Chinese descent
• Category:German Nicaraguans to Category:Nicaraguans of German descent
• Category:Italian Nicaraguans to Category:Nicaraguans of Italian descent
• Category:Spanish Nicaraguans to Category:Nicaraguans of Spanish descent

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu ( talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support per much precedent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:Armenian-Iranians to Category:Iranians of Armenian descent changed to Category:Iranian Armenians, from comments made by User:Darwinek and User:Hakob

* Category:Iranian Georgians to Category:Iranians of Georgian descent withdrawn

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu ( talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Armenians in Iran and Category:Georgians in Iran. Rationale same as in the "Lebanese people of Armenian descent" category. See Armenian Iranians, Iranian Georgians and Ethnic minorities in Iran articles for the detailed information about specific situation of minorities in Iran. Again here, the Western and Eastern concept of nationality and ethnicity is in play. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

True enough, going back to what you brought up earlier, Darwinek. I d prefer however Category:Iranian Armenians and Category:Iranian Georgians to differientiate clearly between citizens (or the equivalent from earlier historic times) and expats. Mayumashu ( talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Iranian Armenians would be the proper category, though most (the vast majority) of actual Iranian Armenians refer to themselves as Parskahay (meaning Persian Armenian), since the community dates back to the Persian empire. Hakob ( talk) 02:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose nom -- This is NOT a expatriate or emigrant category. In the Middle East, various endogamous religious communities exist, and have been distinct from their neighbours for so long as to have become an ethnicity. These do not necessarily have any close connection with the ethnic states that emerged from the collapse of Imperial Russia and were subsequently incorporated into the Soviet Union, possibly Category:Iranians of Armenian reliogion or > Category:Iranians of Armenian ethnicity; similarly for Georgians. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Support nom Most of the Iranian Armenian community is originally from Nakhichevan and other parts of the Caucasus. They refer to themselves as Iranian/Persian Armenians and not "Iranians of Armenian religion/ethnicity." There are Armenians in Iran who belong to the Catholic and Evangelical churches but they still call themselves Iranian/Persian Armenian. Hakob ( talk) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oppose -- Armenian-Iranians are Iranians of Armenian ethnicity. They are one of the largest ethnicity groups in Iran, who have been living in Iran for centuries, i.e. their ancestors are Armenian people. I believe calling them Iranian Armenians is not correct as Iranian Armenians would be Armenian people of Iranian descent, i.e. Iranians who have migrated to Armenia, not the other way around. Refer Iranian Americans who are American people of Iranian descent, Iranian Australians who are Australian people of Iranian descent, i.e. Iranians who have migrated to US or Australia, NOT the other way around. I prefer the terminology of the original rename nomination, i.e. Category:Armenian-Iranians to Category:Iranians of Armenian descent and Category:Iranian Georgians to Category:Iranians of Georgian descent. 203.214.142.100 ( talk) 11:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Further reference can be made to Category:Iranians of Assyrian descent who are Assyrian Iranians, i.e. Iranians of Assyrian ethnicity who have been living in Iran for centuries and their ancestors are Assyrian people. 203.214.142.100 ( talk) 12:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Iranian Armenian (actually, Persian Armenian) is a subcultural identification. It is a direct translation of the Armenian իրանահայ (Iranahay/Iranian Armenian) or պարսկահայ (Parskahay/Persian Armeniain, which is more commonly used). It doesn't only refer to Iranian citizens of Armenian ethnicity. There are Persian Armenians who are citizens of other countries but who self-identify as Persian Armenian. I'd say 99% of the time the term "Iranian/Persian Armenian" is used in literature is to refer to Armenians who were born in Iran, or whose parents or grandparents were born in Iran/Persia. The problem with People of X descent is that it is being used to refer to people of partial X ancestry. Hakob ( talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming

• Category:Portuguese-Mozambican people to Category:Mozambicans of Portuguese descent
• Category:Thai Mozambicans to Category:Mozambicans of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu ( talk) 02:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support per much precedent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Lebanese Armenians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Armenian-Lebanese people to Category:Lebanese people of Armenian descent instead to Category:Lebanese Armenians per discussion here

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention, established recently for clarity Mayumashu ( talk) 02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Armenians in Lebanon per main article Armenians in Lebanon and specific situation of Armenians in Lebanon. I already figured out the situation with traditional ethnic minorities with Mayumashu before. Minorities in Lebanon are much specific and their situation is unique, granted by the constitution. They are even represented in the parliament (see Parliament of Lebanon), because of their traditional presence in the country. Armenians in Lebanon are Armenians in Lebanon, not Lebanese people of Armenian descent. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Suport renaming to Category:Armenians in Lebanon. It seems to me that Armenians regard themselves as a distinct ethnic or national group regardless of where they are -- like Jews in a certain sense. To a Jew, saying "a Russian of Jewish descent" or "a German of Jewish descent" has a distinctly offensive connotation. This is probably so for Armenians also. We will be acknowledging an important national sentiment of the Armenians by opening Category:Armenians in Lebanon, consistently with the main article Armenians in Lebanon. -- Zlerman ( talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes. How about then Category:Lebanese Armenian people or Category:Lebanese Armenians, as in Category:Lebanese Jews? (I d prefer the former for we have Category:Armenian people and not Category:Armenians.) Category:Armenians in Lebanon does not at all differeniate being citizens of Lebanon who are Armenian and citizens of Armenia who are expatriate in Lebanon. Mayumashu ( talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

"Lebanese Armenians" sounds good, too. - Darwinek ( talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Most Lebanese Armenians call themselves exactly that - Lebanese Armenians (mentioned in the Armenians article). It's the same with Syrian, Persian, Russian, Turkish, etc. This does not include "newer" communities (they refer to themselves Armenian-American, Armenian-Canadian, etc). However, I think that Lebanese people of Armenian descent should be kept as a subcategory. For example, Emile Lahoud, the former president of Lebanon is partially Armenian. Lebanese politician Karim Pakradouni is Armenian on his father's side, and Lebanese Maronite on his mother's. Hakob ( talk) 09:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support revised nomination but provide a cap-note to make its scope clear, so that we do not get Lebanese in Armenia added by mistake. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:New Orleans songs to Category:Songs about New Orleans

Nominator's rationale: This should be renamed to match the other "Songs about (place name)" categories. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The New Orleans songs in this category does not necessarily mean they sing about New Orleans. The category includes songs originating from the City as well. (ie. written, done or made famous by New Orleans artists such as "Slippin' and Slidin'" originally done by Eddie Bo.) I'm not that much against renaming, but I personally think the current name is better as it can cover wider range of songs related to the City. Btw, I have tried to look for examples of other "songs about (place name)" categories but couldn't find any. Would it be possible to name a few for our reference? Thanks! -- Sumori ( talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Category:Songs about California is an example. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. I don't think we're ready for a category for "songs that are related to place Xyz in one way or other" -- that's way too loose to be useful. Cgingold ( talk) 05:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Genericized trademarks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Meaningless without context, and prone to abuse/misuse without sourcing. A " genericized trademark" is a product brand name that became the generic name for that product, thus losing all legal force as a trademark. The two biggest problems with grouping these by category: 1) Trademark protection, and therefore genericization, is specific to a market and/or jurisdiction; for example, aspirin is generic in the U.S., but still a protected trademark in Canada. 2) Many trademarks, such as Xerox, Band-AID, or Kleenex, are commonly used as the generic term by consumers, but never by competing companies, because those brands are in fact still governmentally registered, legally protectable trademarks. We already have a List of generic and genericized trademarks, which is prone enough to unsourced additions, but categories have no references or context, and so keeping this category will just invite OR and inaccuracy. Postdlf ( talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Whilst the nom's arguments are very strong, the list article is currently very short, with only a few examples, and excludes the classic UK ones of Sellotape and Hoover, both in this cat. In fact it is less clear than the nom above on the issues (can we vote Merge nom to article?), not specifying countries etc. I'm reluctant just to delete nearly 200 examples, many no doubt wrong, but many not. I'd be inclined to Listify to an extra section of the list "Trademarks claimed to have been genericised in some jurisdictions", with a clean-up tag. Johnbod ( talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The list was recently trimmed substantially by another contributor because most of the entries were unsourced. [2] There are obviously many valid and documented cases worth including and explaining; maybe a list of the category's contents can just be added to the list's talk page, so they can be verified before they are added to the list itself. Postdlf ( talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I suggest the Category is changed to a redirect to the List article. However I also suggest the content of the Category is just abandoned unless someone wants to adopt this. After only a cursory glance only a tiny percentage of the articles in the cat have any content to support their inclusion. At this point it seems better to start from scratch, or at least from what remains of the List article, rather than let the cat remain in the hope that eventually it might evolve into something accurate. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I concur with AlistairMcMillan. A list would be better than a cat. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 16:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose merging/renaming

• Category:British Latin Americans to Category:Latin Americans of British descent
• Category:Asian Latin Americans to Category:Latin Americans of Asian descent

Nominator's rationale: as per recently established naming convention ('people by Fooian descent') Mayumashu ( talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Mayumashu. - Darwinek ( talk) 11:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support per much precedent. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by country to Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country

Nominator's rationale: In relation to a recent CfD, there was no agreement as to what should be done to the categories/articles, so being WP:BOLD, I categorised list articles into a new category called Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country; this naming structure being chosen as it was about the only point with which some parties agreed. Whilst the terms within actual useage is receiving state, we here on WP apparently do not use the term state but rather country. The rename will go someway to recognise usage of the term in the real world; by country could include both of and in categories/articles, and inline with CfD for Category:Diplomatic missions by host country, this is the logical choice of name. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Question: Are you saying that the actual terminology used is "sending state", so we should use "sending country"? I'm assuming that's what you meant, but I want to be sure "sending state" is the actual terminology that is used in diplomacy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

From the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations (1961) (PDF file) - Article 3 1 (a) - Representing the sending State in the receiving State; - the terms country, nation, etc aren't used. Apparently we use country not state here on WP. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Support, with condition (see, I'm not that obnoxious, am I Russavia). However I would agree wtih Good Ol'Factory about using the word 'state' not 'country'. The term 'country' is a more casual and less legally prescriptive term than 'state'. I would further be guided by the VCDR terminology. My support also extends to receiving and sending articles. Kransky ( talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I suspect, but do not know, that we use country since it is more precise. State is pretty ambiguous since it can be used in diplomacy to mean basically a country. And states are political subdivisions of several countries. I guess the decision as to which one is better here would depend on how ambiguous the use of state would be. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support -- Country is better than state, which might refer to US States, Indian States, Malaysian States, etc. even though these do not have interational relations. However, I would prefer "state" to a no consensus closure. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. I wasn't questioning the use of "country" in the place of "state" at all—my question was b/c the nom referred to "receiving state" but not to "sending state" as the official terminology, and I just wanted to be sure that the treaty used both terms. I wholeheartedly support the change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Diplomatic missions by host country to Category:Diplomatic missions by receiving country

Nominator's rationale: In relation to a recent CfD, there was no agreement as to what should be done to the categories/articles, so being WP:BOLD, I categorised list articles into a new category called Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country; this naming structure being chosen as it was about the only point with which some parties agreed. Whilst the terms within actual useage is receiving state, we here on WP apparently do not use the term state but rather country. The rename will go someway to recognise usage of the term in the real world; host country is not entirely correct, as articles also include accredited embassies which are not located in the host country. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support -- This is a good nomination, despite the difficulty over there being some embassies that cover several countries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support wholeheartedly per nom. No problem with changing from "state" to "country" as "state" in WP is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at 2008 AUG 21 per request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Propaganda films to Category:to be determined by consensus

This proposal also includes renaming the subcategories

• Category:American propaganda films
• Category:British propaganda films
• Category:Japanese propaganda films
• Category:Soviet propaganda films

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category title is inherently PoV due to the strong negative connotation carried by the word "propaganda", even if Wikipedia consistently uses NPoV criteria for adding films to the category. Possibilities for more NPoV names include "Films described as propaganda" (with a suitably broad interpretation for the category) and "historical propaganda films" (with a narrowing of focus to films that are considered propaganda by historians). Relevant discussion may be found at Category talk:Propaganda films (recent discussion), Category talk:Propaganda, and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3#POV.2FDispute Issues (older discussions) skeptical scientist ( talk) 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support rename per discussion on Category talk:Propaganda films. My choice is "Category:Films described as propaganda". Deamon138 ( talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support concur with above. I think once again it would be prudent to quote WP:CAT: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option." Very few, if any, films are self-evidently propaganda, and such designations are usually controversial. This category has been, and in cases still is, rife with abuse. - R. fiend ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment sorry to be a stickler, but would the nominator please tag the categories under discussion using {{ cfr}}? Tim! ( talk) 16:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Looks like it's been done. Deamon138 ( talk) 20:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No it hasn't. Tim! ( talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Erm, all of those categories have the cfr tag on them. What categories are you looking at? Deamon138 ( talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The ones nominated which are not tagged. Which ones are you looking at? Tim! ( talk) 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Ah I see they are on the category talk pages, which is not correct. They should be moved onto the actual category pages. Tim! ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Right, I've moved them all onto the right pages, I hope I did it okay (although the part where it says "add entry" links to August 9th, rather than the 6th, which I couldn't fix, can anyone else?). Sorry about the confusion Tim!, and thanks for clearing it up lol. Deamon138 ( talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Sorry, my bad. skeptical scientist ( talk) 02:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• Comment. As has been argued on the talk page for this category, I don't think propaganda is a term that can be objectively applied. What is obvious to you or me, is not obvious to someone else. I am certain that even the most blatant piece of propaganda around will still be described by someone else out there (even innocently) as not propaganda. It makes sense to just include those films described as propaganda in this category, because a category called "Propaganda films" is POV (you might not see the negative connotations, but I do) is basically an assertion that a film in it is propaganda. It says on WP:CAT that, "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc." So in this case, Wikipedia itself would be saying, "Article X is a Propaganda film" when that is a POV. Remember, Wikipedia describes the controversy, not advocates it. In response to your other point, "To whom do abdicate to describe something as propaganda?" Well, the exact criteria for that hasn't been decided, but my personal view is that it should be mentioned in reliable, secondary sources (cited in the article of course). I originally wanted one source to describe it as "propaganda", but that would be a little lax, and would let in extreme views. If it has been in a few sources, then it is more likely that it belongs in this category. Thus if extremists are calling something propaganda, then it would need to be shown to have been called that in a few sources, which would thus show that the film is noted for being described as propaganda. Deamon138 ( talk) 17:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

As far as I'm concerned, the proposal to rename to "Category:Films described as propaganda" is a complete non-starter. Why is that? Very simple: Because so many different films have been labelled as "propaganda" by so many different people, that virtually any film with a POV might reasonably qualify. Hell, we might even be better off having a category for "Films not described as propaganda". So I Oppose renaming to Category:Films described as propaganda. Having said that, I would also suggest that there might possibly be a place for list-articles of such films, perhaps arranged in such a way as to shed light on the political motivations of both the filmmakers and those who consider the films to be propaganda.

Returning to the question at hand, although this category tree is very problematic, I would not support complete, across-the-board deletion, because there are certain categories of films that are unquestionably "propaganda". I would give serious consideration to restricting Category:Propaganda films to use purely as a "container category" for specific sub-cats devoted to the two groupings I mentioned above -- historical and governmental -- because those films can far more persuasively, verifiably and uncontroversially be demonstrated to be clear instances of propaganda. At present we have about a dozen sub-categories that would come under this umbrella. Cgingold ( talk) 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• Notified creator with {{ subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• Sounds good to me too, though I think we might then soon see category:Intelligent design propaganda films. Be prepared. - R. fiend ( talk) 22:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Let's not lose sight of the fact that we need to decide which sorts of sub-categories are okay. We seem to have general agreement that only certain types of films should be categorized as "propaganda". We need to spell this out as clearly as possible. I've already suggested the two major areas that I think are permissible -- historical and government-made/funded. Clearly, the films-by-country sub-cats are no better than the main category, and should also be restricted to sub-cats for certain genres of films. Cgingold ( talk) 11:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Agreed. skeptical scientist ( talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

• I also don't think the category should be restricted to governmental or historical types. What if say a terrorist organization made one? At the end of the day, we should use what the sources are saying, and if a number of sources are saying that "X is propaganda" and even if X is neither historical nor governmental, then it doesn't matter. Clearly then the reliable sources think it is noted for being propaganda despite not fitting into those two groupings. I don't mind having lots of container categories like skeptical scientist said above, so long as the rest of the criteria are followed that have I suggested. Deamon138 ( talk) 12:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note for admin: I know this has already been relisted once, but please relist again. The total length is not all that great, and it would be a real shame to waste the effort that's been put into this discussion by forcing a new CFD to start over from scratch. Cgingold ( talk) 13:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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.