Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14[edit]

Category:Homeopathic remedies[edit]

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: reverse merge. There is clear consensus to change one direction or another, and no interest in keeping both. There is absolutely no consensus as to which direction to go, however. Under such a circumstance, there's no policy to govern a decision, but leaving both is not an option. I'm more convinced by the reverse merge arguments than the merge arguments, in that "preparations" seems like an attempt to paper over some negative connotations of the earlier, more dominant term. But the distinction is extremely subtle, and not at all apparent to the lay reader. It is possible that there is a better term for this category, but "preparations" doesn't seem to me to be it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Homeopathic remedies to Category:Homeopathic preparations
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories, matching List of homeopathic preparations (whose name was discussed extensively a while back) should be preferred. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was April 2009. Do you think that that demonstrates a consensus for merging the other way? Regardless, I think these categories are redundant and should be merged one way or the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you on a merge but I don't have any strong views on which way, sorry. I'm sure others will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the merge as you suggest would be less-POV, in the sense that it should be more palatable to those who hold that homeopathy doesn't "remedy" anything. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What is the rationale for preferring "preparations" over "remedies"? Is it simply that there is a dispute as to whether homeopathic preparations "remedy" anything? While I'm sympathetic to that view, in the last discussion, I was convinced by the argument that these are most commonly referred to as "homeopathic remedies". Is this not the case? I think we should call them whatever they are usually called in English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are referred to as medicines (preferred by Homeopaths), remedies (prefered by advertisers) and preparations is also common, and was found to be most neutral presentation on wikipedia - partly for the reason you give. All are common names, but wikipedia would never accept "medicines" so preparations would be the most neutral while still following common. Verbal chat 13:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I rubbed my eyes in disbelief when I saw that this category was at CFD again, because the last time it came up I felt that we had rendered a definitive decision. So for those who can't work up the energy to click on the link to the previous CFD, here is the main paragraph I wrote making the case for retaining Category:Homeopathic remedies:
I would agree that we don't want to use a name that is merely or primarily promotional. However, I don't really think that "Homeopathic remedies" is an unacceptably problematic term in and of itself. To begin with, when I said that it was the "standard term", I meant first and foremost that historically they have always been known and referred to as "Homeopathic remedies". In addition, the term "Homeopathic remedies" is vastly more widely used than "Homeopathic preparations", which is amply confirmed by the huge disparity in G-hits: 22,600 for "Homeopathic preparations" versus 1,160,000 for "Homeopathic remedies". Moreover, the scholarly publications indexed by Google Scholar do not eschew the term in the least -- quite the opposite: 921 hits for "Homeopathic preparations" versus 4,270 hits for "Homeopathic remedies". And the term is used even by those who are strongly opposed to homeopathy, as you can see by the following title (from the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 1995): "Why pharmacists should not sell homeopathic remedies". (italics added) In short, that is simply what they are called, and what they are known as by the public, so it seems to me that that is the term we should use as well. Therefore I Oppose Renaming.
I have nothing further to add. Cgingold (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is factually incorrect (I can bold too!). Historically the term has been "homeopthic medicine" and "tincture", the terms favoured by promoters and only more recently regulated against. List of homeopathic preparations should be the parent article of both categories (which I agree shoud be merged and split), but per our consensus at List of homeopathic preparations, the need for consistence across wikipedia per WP:MOS, and our requirement to be neutral, the standard term that meets these criteria should be used, and that is "preparation". Verbal chat 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would appear that we could use some scholarly input on this point. "Homeopathic remedies" has been used for a very long time, but I do not know the exact year that it came into use. Obviously other terms have also been used, but at some point in the past "Homeopathic remedies" became the dominant term -- again, I cannot say the exact year, but perhaps a scholar of the subject could pinpoint that for us. All the same, the larger point remains unchallenged: even in Google Scholar, "Homeopathic remedies" is far and away more widely used than "homeopathic preparations". (As for the purported but non-existent "consensus at List of homeopathic preparations", I've already addressed this in my comment below.) Cgingold (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)The term used by those opposed to homeopathy is "water" (or sugar, or alcohol, depending on the solvent). Verbal chat 13:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Seems silly to have both, and preparations is more general and neutral. Verbal chat 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually they should be split in two: "Homeopathic preparations" and "Substances used in homeopathy". Present system is unclear. Verbal chat 13:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to respond to what I said above? I don't believe you did last time. Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Medicine, treatments, remedies, tinctures and preparations are all common. Preparations has the benefit of no impled POV, which we should avoid per our core principles. You are also adding things that clearly are not remedies to teh category. That's just confusing. Verbal chat 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but you still haven't responded in any way to the substance of my detailed findings on usage of the terms. As for placing certain articles in Category:Homeopathic remedies, I have done so only after scrutinizing the articles in question and determining that each included text which noted ingredients identifiable as "Homeopathic remedies". Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've shown that all terms are common, and we should use one that doesn't assert a POV. Preparation is used in scientific reviews, as is remedy when they quote the manufactures name. We should avoid POV and stick to a neutral label. The spliting of the category I have proposed would solve the other problem. Homeopathic products also gets a lot of hits, and would be acceptable per policy. Verbal chat 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me (again) - but what the G-hits clearly show is that one term (Homeopathic remedies) is far more widely used than the other term (Homeopathic preparations). And that is because "Homeopathic remedies" is, in fact, the standard term. I realize that rubs you the wrong way, but it is undeniably the case. Cgingold (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologise, it doesn't rub me at all. You've shown they're all common, and in neutral sources (though that's not very important) preparations or products is more used. As they are all common, and the standard homeopaths term of medicines is unacceptable, we should choose a neutral term per our core policies. Verbal chat 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge per Cgingold and per the previous CFD. "Homeopathic remedies" appears to me to be far, far more commonly used. Even in google scholar, "remedies" is used 5 times as often as "preparations". I support using the one that is more commonly used, even though I am sympathetic to the view that one is more POV than the other. I'd rather have some form of merge performed than having this closed as "no consensus" — it's silly to have two categories for the exact same thing. In that regard, I also note that Category:Homeopathic remedies is much older and when Category:Homeopathic preparations was created, there was no resulting consensus in the discussion to rename the category. Thus, the older one should prevail, even if the result here is "no consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really glad you brought up this last point. The decision in the previous CFD was very clear cut, and it was merely an oversight that the newly-created duplicate category Homeopathic preparations was not deleted at that time. Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to delete the broader category then you'll have to start an appropriate discussion. Verbal chat 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Preparations -> Remedies for WP:NPOV concerns, which can easily be addressed by using one of the other WP:COMMON names which doesn't have baggage (product, preparation, etc), and because it is a less broad category. See also List of homeopathic preparations which established a wikipedia consensus on the name. Verbal chat 13:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read thru the talk section on List of homeopathic preparations and I do not agree with your assertion that it "established a wikipedia consensus on the name". The name of the article was changed despite the fact that there was very clearly no consensus to do so in that discussion. (I would also note that the proposed name change was not properly listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves as it should have been.) Cgingold (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging... no opinion as to which title to use. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. But... "remedies" is the more neutral title as it is found in four times as many articles in Google Scholar ([1] vs [2]) and twice as many PubMed abstracts ([3] vs [4]). Fences&Windows 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPOV is a core policy, which takes primacy over WP:COMMON. Preparation, medicine and remedy are all common, yet only preparation is neutral. Verbal chat 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge into Category Homeopathic preparations. The title remedies is not neutral. Homeopathic solutions are not a remedy or a cure. Homeopathic preparations are only possibly effective as a placebo effect. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge into Remedies. Even Ernst uses that term[5]. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this - an excellent link. It's for "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy", published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. While this review of reviews is by no means supportive of homeopathy, the author nonetheless uses the term "homeopathic remedies" throughout the article (16 times). Not once does he use the term "homeopathic preparations". Cgingold (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong reverse merge. We've been here squillions of times, and the same reasons still apply: as discussed by others above, "homeopathic remedies" is the WP:COMMONNAME for these preparations. I am aware that opponents of homeopathy dislike the term, but if we start throwing out common terms because some people try to problematise them, then we will be in a real minefield. (Football clubs are not clubs in any usual sense of the word, they are businesses, so let's rename them; members of the X political party are not politicians, they are extortionists; the British monarchy is mostly German, so let's rename that ... and so. Please folks, don't go there). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV is non-negotiable. The word "remedies" implies it is effective. The word "preparations" is neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet any number of non-homeopath academics, notably including Ernst in his strictly neutral review cited above, see fit to use the term "homeopathic remedies" - precisely because it is understood to be the proper/standard term for the items in question. Cgingold (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a [citation needed] tag to your "precisely because it is understood to be the proper/standard term" assertion. That is your opinion. NPOV is clear, medicine and remedy are both unacceptable. Verbal chat 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to offer a plausible alternative explanation for the fact that "homeopathic remedies" is by far the preferred term among non-homeopath academics in their writings on the subject. I submit that that is because there IS no other explanation. Cgingold (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to see a WP:RS for your assertion, however it is irrelevant as we have the core policy of WP:NPOV. Verbal chat 11:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My "assertion" is a simple inference based on the very clear disparity in frequency of use of the terms we are discussing -- a fact that you doggedly refuse to acknowledge, much less offer a plausible alternative explanation for. Cgingold (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge into 'preparations' because this is a neutral term, as opposed to 'remedy' (which implies effectiveness); 'treatment' would also be acceptable IMHO, since not all treatments are effective. It doesn't matter which term is used most frequently - surely NPOV takes precedence. Commonly-used terms can be redirected to a neutral term. --TraceyR (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People from Indonesia[edit]

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) 03:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Bandung, West Java to Category:People from Bandung
Propose renaming Category:People from Blitar, East Java to Category:People from Blitar
Propose renaming Category:People from Bogor, West Java to Category:People from Bogor
Propose renaming Category:People from Madiun, East Java to Category:People from Madiun
Propose renaming Category:People from Makassar, South Sulawesi to Category:People from Makassar
Propose renaming Category:People from Medan, North Sumatra to Category:People from Medan
Propose renaming Category:People from Palembang, South Sumatra to Category:People from Palembang
Propose renaming Category:People from Pekalongan, Central Java to Category:People from Pekalongan
Propose renaming Category:People from Semarang, Central Java to Category:People from Semarang
Propose renaming Category:People from Surakarta, Central Java to Category:People from Surakarta
Nominator's rationale: No need to disambig these city categories in Indonesia. In all cases, the main articles are without the extra disambig. See also previous CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the "X-town, Y-state" is generally a U.S. phenomena. --Soman (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mountains of Ulster County, New York[edit]

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mountains of Ulster County, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is redundant with Category:Catskills. Gjs238 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There are glacial ridges along the Hudson that are probably notable even if we don't yet have articles on them, like Shaupeneak Ridge or Marlboro Mountain. They're not in the Catskills. Nor are any of the peaks along the Shawangunk Ridge in the Catskills, either (and how, pray tell, is the reader from outside New York or even outside the Hudson Valley supposed to know that Ulster County=Catskills (Not that, as I've said, it does). Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that not all Ulster County mountains may be in Catskills. However, for now the category is empty. Gjs238 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the notable Catskill peaks are High Peaks. As for just leaving it all in Mountains of New York, that category has the potential to be huge, with hundreds of entries, so I have always thought subdividing it by county was a good idea. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am outside the Americas altogether and am not familiar with the area at all. My point is that an edit such as this takes the article out of the 2 parent categories of Category:Mountains of Ulster County, New York as well. It sounds as if 'keep and repopulate' is the way to go. Occuli (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retract my nomination. I had originally considered the category to be in series/redundant with Category:Catskills. However, they are parallel cats. Gjs238 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Monuments in New York[edit]

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Monuments in New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is redundant with Category:National Park Service National Monuments in New York, itself a subcategory of Category:United States National Park Service areas in New York. Gjs238 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Tiverton[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Tiverton to Category:People from Tiverton, Devon
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Tiverton, Devon and article Tiverton, Devon, and to avoid potential confusion with Category:People from Tiverton, Rhode Island, and the various other Tivertons elsewhere. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Neftchala[edit]

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) 03:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Neftchala to Category:People from Neftchala Rayon
Nominator's rationale: for disambiguation and wider application. Neftchala city is located within Neftchala Rayon and there is only one bio linked to this page. Moreover the parent category is Category:Neftchala Rayon Mayumashu (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – per persuasive nom. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Left For Dead members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Left For Dead members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redlink band per Left for dead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it can be recreated if the band gets an article. Occuli (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dimension Zero albums[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dimension Zero albums to Category:Dimension Zero (Swedish band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating category name to match Dimension Zero (Swedish band). Dimension Zero (American band) exists on WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – to match corresponding article. Occuli (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

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. Courcelles (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: as per deletion of other category pages for sub-national sport halls of fame Mayumashu (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per consensus these should be listified, which this already is at Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. These have been extensively mooted; I'm not sure I have anything to add that hasn't recently been brought up at related CFDs and DRVs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-Israel[edit]

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 and purge. As the supporters note, the distinction is too subtle for the Wikipedia reader. Moreover, we don't have anti-nation categories; there's no category:Anti-Germany or Category:Anti-France. There is a type of category for opposition to people of a particular nationality, in the subcategories of Category:Anti-national sentiment, but there is no category type for opposition to a particular nation itself. Category:Anti-Zionism has a good header, pointing out that it unites many concepts without judging motivation too finely. It covers opposition to the existence or expansion of the state of Israel, among other things. However, this closing does not presume that all members of the current category are anti-Zionist, and if they are not, they should be removed from the target category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Anti-Israel to Category:Anti-Zionism
Nominator's rationale: Merge: "Anti-Israel" is synonymous with "Anti-Zionism", so there is no justification for separate categories. GCarty (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This category originally was created when people were trying to rename various articles with this title and was a POV move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the difference is too subtle to warrant different categories, and i believe all the articles which can be categorized as anti-israel can be safely categorized as anti-zionism. there are people who are anti-zionist but recognize israel as a nation with a right to exist within international law, but thats not relevant to the articles listed here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the category was a pov statement from the beginning. --Soman (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure. Some people claim to be anti-Zionists (with the loaded connotation that brings) but not anti-Israel (as in the country or people itself). GCarty, can you provide some sources for me to read? --Shuki (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with Shuki on this one. Anti-Zionist is not always Anti-Israel and vice-versa. Just as not all Jews are Pro-Israel and not all Israelis are Pro-Zionism. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 00:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)cmt[reply]
  • Keep as separate categories - Anti-Israel refers to being against the nation of Israel, and often has anti-semitic reprecussioins. Anti-Zionism refers to being against the Jewish settlement in the land of Israel and the like. Two very different meanings. Linda Olive (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Someone who is anti-Israel is also anti-Zionist, but not vice versa. In other words one can be opposed to idea of Zionism, but not support the idea that the county now known as Israel should fold up shop, unless s/he is anti-Israel as well.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Zionism is merely the name of the Israeli national movement. To be oppose to Zionism is to be opposed to the existence of an independent Jewish state in any part of the historic Jewish homeland and thus opposed to Israel. I can see no distinquishing between the two. (Being pro-Zionist or pro-Israel has nothing whatever to do with whether one supports or not the expansion of Jewish settlement in territory captured by Israel in 1967.) Those who claim to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Israel appear to favour the dismantling the present Zionist state (namely Israel), a contradiction. This must clearly be anti-Israel. Davshul (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Planned invasions[edit]

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 as modified. — ξxplicit 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Planned invasions to Category:Canceled invasionsCategory:Cancelled invasions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These invasions never happened. We can either do this, or go one step further and upmerge them into the newly applied parent category Category:Canceled military operations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Future events[edit]

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 as modified. — ξxplicit 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Future events to Category:Upcoming events Category:Scheduled events
Propose renaming Category:Future sporting events to Category:Upcoming sporting events Category:Scheduled sporting events
Propose renaming Category:Future spaceflights to Category:Upcoming spaceflights Category:Scheduled spaceflights
Propose renaming Category:Future human spaceflights to Category:Upcoming human spaceflightsCategory:Scheduled human spaceflights
Propose renaming Category:Future manned Soyuz missions to Category:Upcoming manned Soyuz missionsCategory:Scheduled manned Soyuz missions
Propose renaming Category:Future elections to Category:Upcoming elections Category:Scheduled elections
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Asia to Category:Upcoming elections in Asia Category:Scheduled elections in Asia
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Australia to Category:Upcoming elections in Australia Category:Scheduled elections in Australia
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Canada to Category:Upcoming elections in Canada Category:Scheduled elections in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Europe to Category:Upcoming elections in Europe Category:Scheduled elections in Europe
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in France to Category:Upcoming elections in France Category:Scheduled elections in France
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Germany to Category:Upcoming elections in Germany Category:Scheduled elections in Germany
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Spain to Category:Upcoming elections in Spain Category:Scheduled elections in Spain
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in the United Kingdom to Category:Upcoming elections in the United Kingdom Category:Scheduled elections in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Future elections in the United States to Category:Upcoming elections in the United States Category:Scheduled elections in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Future election candidates to Category:Upcoming election candidates Category:Candidates in scheduled elections
Propose renaming Category:Future products to Category:Upcoming products
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In somewhat the same vein as this and other nominations, I'm suggesting removing the "Future" from the title. Most of the subcategories of Category:Future events use "Upcoming." This is not my favorite choice, since it still makes a WP:CRYSTAL claim of what will happen in the future, but these things do tend to happen. (There will be a next election in Spain, pending a unscheduled supernova.) So while I'd probably prefer "Proposed," this change will do. In the case of the latter category, almost all of its subcategories are also "Upcoming."--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the election ones, can we used scheduled? I know that for places like the UK, scheduled will not mean a specific date until a few months before. However as you said above, we know those will happen even if the date is uncertain right after the previous election. Upcoming also may not impart the fact that these may already be in progress. In the US, the 2012 attack ads have already started. Scheduled would also work for the space categories and should deal better with WP:CRYSTAL for all of this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scheduled" would make me very happy, since it doesn't predict the future. Are we okay with "Scheduled" for things like astronomical events, which will happen unless the universe explodes? If so, I'm behind all of the events becoming "Scheduled".--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - "Scheduled" is fine for events that are, in fact, "Scheduled" - i.e. by human beings. But it would be pretty silly to refer to astronomical events as "Scheduled", don't you think?? Cgingold (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does indeed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So are we saying that Category:Future events can not be changed to Category:Scheduled events or that we only need to leave Category:Upcoming astronomical events at that name? Or do we need to use Category:Upcoming events for the parent? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I think I'm changing my mind on "Scheduled astronomical events" (I created the "Upcoming astronomical events" category a few days ago, actually). They are scheduled, in that we humans keep track of things by schedules. We're writing about this from our perspective, and so if I want to know when the next eclipse is, I look at a schedule of eclipses. "Scheduled" works for me in all cases, so I'm behind that wording.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mike, you've got me laughing so hard after reading this ingenious bit of sophistry that I can hardly type straight! If astronomical events can be "Scheduled", why, I suppose anything that can be marked on a calendar can be "Scheduled". I guess there really is no limitation on human agency - apparently even the very heavens are at our command! (Come to think of it, Christopher Columbus made excellent use of this very ability, impressing and terrifying the indigenous people he encountered with the power he had to make the Moon itself disappear at his command). Cgingold (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am a world-class sophist. Some would say, a professional one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • In case that came across sounding kind of snarky, I assure you I was feeling thoroughly amused by the whole thing -- no offense intended. Cgingold (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:Scheduled foo per the extensive discussion above. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed all but Category:Future products to "Scheduled" instead of "Upcoming", including a slight wording change for the election candidates. Category:Future products's entire subcategory structure is based on "Upcoming (X)," and so it doesn't make sense in this nomination to change it to "Scheduled". It also probably doesn't belong in the events category. I suggest making that "Upcoming" to conform to its subcategories and then maybe nominate all of those later.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no issue with withdrawing those two. Clearly a more focused discussion on those two areas would not hurt. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I must not have been clear. I'm not withdrawing Category:Future products, because it is out of character with its subcategories (they're all "Upcoming"). That part of this nomination I suggest keeping the same as I originally intended. Everything else can change to "Scheduled."--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose all. This is a solution in desperate search for a problem. Plenty of things are definitely going to happen in the future, but are not scheduled: e.g. the death of a monarch, or the world reaching 9 billion population. "Future" is a term which includes both scheduled and unscheduled events, and I see no benefit from narrowing the scope in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I understand BHGs concern, this change better reflects decisions here. We routinely delete categories that are about future happenings when the date is not established. This change makes it clear that categories should generally only be for happenings that can get a time established for them to happen in. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revised nom. I think "scheduled" is much better, at least for the subcategories listed above. I'm not sure about renaming Category:Future events if all the subcategories are not renamed, however. Call me "neutral" on that one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional kiwi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Per the Oppose votes, the fictional animals categories use common names for these animals, and allow for some assumption of interpretive ability on the reader's part. As to whether "(bird)" must be added, it is unlikely a reader would assume there were Wikipedia articles on fictional fuzzy brown-skinned fruits.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional kiwi to Category:Fictional Apteryx (or Category:Fictional kiwi (bird), added at 03:52 15 June 2010 UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In this recent discussion, there was no consensus to rename Category:Apteryx to Category:Kiwi, so I propose renaming the subcategory of this category to match its parent, which is still Category:Apteryx. ("Apteryx" is a genus name so it is capitalized.) I still think it makes more sense to use "kiwi" in category names rather than "Apteryx", but these categories should at least be consistent since they are referring to exactly the same thing—one real, one fictional. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and if Category:Apteryx is nominated again for renaming, include this in such a nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The last nomination of Category:Apteryx could have gone to Category:Kiwi (bird) rather then a keep. The problem was the that there was opposition to just plain kiwi. Maybe this should be modified to rename Category:Fictional kiwi to Category:Fictional kiwi (bird) and add rename Category:Apteryx to Category:Kiwi (bird). I think this would have support except from the purists who want the category to always match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are fictional characters not actual birds in the genus "Apteryx". Commons has the right idea with these sort of things (i.e. Commons:Category:Sus and Commons:Category:Pigs in art, not Commons:Category:Sus in art). -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your comment. They are also not actual kiwi, so either option runs afoul (har har) of your criticism. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the principle really that hard to understand? They are representations of kiwi, of course but not members of the genus "Apteryx". "Apteryx" is a biological taxonomic form that is suitable for use with biological subjects but for use in other areas "Kiwi" is the better term.. We follow the same principle here at enwiki (although probably not for long once the CfD regulars get hold of the subject). See Category:Equus for the biological uses and Category:Horses for other uses. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not difficult to understand what you mean when you write what you mean. What you wrote immediately above is not the same as what you wrote before. In any case, they are also fictional representations of the genus Apteryx, so the distinction you are drawing is as artificial as any other that can be made. Just because you agree with a specific approach doesn't make it the only possible "correct" one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apteryx haastii is a bird, Goodnight Kiwi is a cartoon character and thus not a bird nor a member of Genus Apteryx any more than me putting on a Big Bird costume makes me a bird. I am unsure how much clearer I can be. You don't have to agree with my rationale but to claim you don't understand my reasoning or that it is somehow "artificial" is perverse. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that it is not a bird of the Genus Apteryx, but it is a fictional bird of the Genus Apteryx as much as it is a fictional kiwi. I don't see any way around that except by constructing artificial (or if you prefer—"arbitrary") rules or barriers for how category names will be used. I don't understand how it's "perverse" to state that I don't understand a particular comment you made. If you want to be understood, just be more clear, as you were with your second comment. You seem to be conflating not understanding (my reaction to your first comment) with disagreeing with an approach (my reaction to your second comment). They are not the same thing, and trying to be clearer will always help with the first, but only occasionally with the second. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Fictional kiwi (birds), since "Kiwi" is ambiguous, and categories should not be ambiguous. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the very clear and straightforward view of mattinbgn. The fictional characters are not members of any genus. This change makes it more confusing for most people who know what a kiwi is, but wouldn't have a clue what a Apteryx is (ie 99% of the world). The-Pope (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Future things[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Future military equipment to Category:Proposed military equipment
Propose renaming Category:Future weapons to Category:Proposed weapons
Propose renaming Category:Future American weapons to Category:Proposed American weapons
Propose renaming Category:Future sports venues to Category:Proposed sports venues
Propose renaming Category:Future television channels and networks to Category:Proposed television channels and networks
Propose renaming Category:Future radio stations and programming to Category:Proposed radio stations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggesting de-futurizing this along the lines of this recent series of nominations. In the latter category, these are all radio stations; there appears to be no programming here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm and Turkish beyliks[edit]

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 as obsolete. This category is empty and has been listed for deletion for that reason. The name is also unnecessarily confusing as noted below. We have Category:Sultanate of Rûm and Category:Anatolian beyliks for articles that want to go in here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm and Turkish beyliks to Category:Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term "Sultanate of Rum" is as pertinent in our day as the term Indian Territories is for the American Midwest. Furthermore, the name for the category has a faulty logic in ascribing the term "Seljuk" to both the sultanate and the principalities (Beyliks). Each had dynasties from different backgrounds, Beyliks were dependent on or independent from the Sultanate in varying degrees in each case and each evolving in time. What these had in common was that all, Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks, were located in "Anatolia". There were other Seljuk sultanates and other Turkish Beyliks elsewhere. Cretanforever (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move on the two grounds: 1) "Sultanate of Rum" is by no means obsolete nomenclature. Turkish nationalists, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with the term Rûm. Turkish historical pedagogy has followed the nationalists in this regard so that Turkish textbooks almost invariably now refer to the people as Anadolu Selçukları or "Anatolian Seljuks". On the other hand, English and other Western European scholarship refers to them as the Seljuks or Seljuqs of Rum. I have seen recently published bilingual books on the subject where the Turkish text reads Anadolu Selçukları and the English reads Seljuqs of Rum (ref. upon request). According to WP:UE, we need to use the commonly accepted English language name which in this case certainly includes the word Rûm. Added to this is the fact that the Seljuqs themselves were not ashamed to call the land they ruled Rûm.
2) In the name of this category, the adjective "Seljuk" clearly does not modify "Turkish Beyliks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramgar (talk • contribs)
Oppose, I see no viable reason for the change. When placed in quotations "Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate" gets 17 hits on google books[6], whereas "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" gets 737 hits[7]. So the theory of faulty logic is in itself a fallacy. In a side note, I've noticed an increase in removal(and change) of categories by nationalistic editors. Clearly this is an attempt to removed information found unpalatable and in most cases, to reflect the policies and agenda of a nationalistic Turkish POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Filmed suicides in the September 11 attacks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filmed suicides in the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This is a fine example of wildly excessive categorization. Somehow, I briefly thought perhaps there might be a film or two about some of the people who leaped to their deaths from the top floors of the World Trade Center. Not hardly. None of the articles are even about films that deal with the indicated subject. What's more, none of the articles actually show the individuals in question committing suicide, because they are, in fact, none other than the hijackers of the airliners -- all of whom are already covered by the parent Category:Participants in the September 11 attacks. Sheesh... have I missed anything? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Holy crap. No offence to the creator, but this is kind of inane. These are hardly "filmed suicides", since the individuals committing suicide cannot be seen on the film. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the contents of the category, this is far better covered in Category:Participants in the September 11 attacks and the title of this category under discussion would lead many to believe it was about victims of the crashes, not perpetrators. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, title is misleading if category contents are as described. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed infrastructure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Planned infrastructure
Propose renaming Category:Planned infrastructure to Category:Proposed infrastructure
Propose merging Category:Planned or proposed bridges to Category:Proposed bridges
Propose merging Category:Planned or proposed Buildings to Category:Proposed buildings and structures
Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed canals to Category:Proposed canals
Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed energy projects to Category:Proposed energy projects
Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed indoor arenas to Category:Proposed indoor arenas
Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed stadiums to Category:Proposed stadiums
Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed stadiums in the United States to Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed tunnels to Category:Proposed tunnels
Propose renaming Category:Planned coal-fired power stations in the United States to Category:Proposed coal-fired power stations in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Planned museums to Category:Proposed museums
Propose renaming Category:Planned museums in Canada to Category:Proposed museums in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Planned museums in the United States to Category:Proposed museums in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Planned skyscrapers in Israel to Category:Proposed skyscrapers in Israel
Propose renaming Category:Nuclear power stations with planned reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations with proposed reactors
Planned airlines
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines to Category:Proposed airlines
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Australia to Category:Proposed airlines of Australia
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Gabon to Category:Proposed airlines of Gabon
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Germany to Category:Proposed airlines of Germany
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Greece to Category:Proposed airlines of Greece
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Guyana to Category:Proposed airlines of Guyana
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Haiti to Category:Proposed airlines of Haiti
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of India to Category:Proposed airlines of India
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Iraq to Category:Proposed airlines of Iraq
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Italy to Category:Proposed airlines of Italy
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Macau to Category:Proposed airlines of Macau
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Russia to Category:Proposed airlines of Russia
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Serbia to Category:Proposed airlines of Serbia
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of South Korea to Category:Proposed airlines of South Korea
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Sri Lanka to Category:Proposed airlines of Sri Lanka
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Syria to Category:Proposed airlines of Syria
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Thailand to Category:Proposed airlines of Thailand
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Czech Republic to Category:Proposed airlines of the Czech Republic
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Proposed airlines of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Dominican Republic to Category:Proposed airlines of the Dominican Republic
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the People's Republic of China to Category:Proposed airlines of the People's Republic of China
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Philippines to Category:Proposed airlines of the Philippines
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the United Arab Emirates to Category:Proposed airlines of the United Arab Emirates
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the United Kingdom to Category:Proposed airlines of the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the United States to Category:Proposed airlines of the United States
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Tunisia to Category:Proposed airlines of Tunisia
Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Vietnam to Category:Proposed airlines of Vietnam
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Now that we've decided to use "Proposed" for all unfinished infrastructure categories, here are a few that need to be standardized, including the recently renamed parent category. I left out all "Planned cities," "Planned developments," and "Planned communities" variants until I can determine which of them mean "Not yet built" and which mean "New town".--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. The omissions were wise ones: "Planned" for communities can mean that they were developed according to a master plan, rather than having grown organically. For example Washington DC is (I understand) planned, whereas London is certainly not. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm not nominating any more of the "Planned" ones, because they all are of the Category:Planned cities variety, as far as I can tell. I've given all of those a header which explains where to look for places that are simply not yet constructed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_14&oldid=1078927545"