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. --Xdamr^talk 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Captain Underpants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: After redirecting several unsourced stubs (and asking Jéské to delete one hoax), this category now has only the title article and Dav Pilkey's article. Absolutely no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's not really that useful... Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subcat Category:Captain Underpants novels can be made a direct child of Category:Series of children's books, with Captain Underpants as its main article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Fascists of British Palestine. Basically this was a no consensus on keeping or deleting. However I believe there was a consensus that the current name is not correct, hence the rename close. I did look to see if an upmerge was possible, but it seems that all of the people are contained in the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative nomination: was nominated for a speedy capitalization change, when the discussion below took place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Israeli Fascists to Category:Israeli fascists #2 — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the creator of the category, I have no problem with this. However, it should be noted that the previous category was deleted, after someone deleted it. The individuals in question were Israelis/Palestinian Mandate Jews who tried to set up an Italian style Fascist movement before WWII. Unfortunately at least one use seems to want to erase that particular aspect of history. I also worry that the category might be abused by Palestinian activists, but that's another matter.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the activities in question took place in the early 1930's, at least 15 years prior to the establishment of the Israeli State (and before the word Fascism developed its present meaning - see article), the use of the word "Israeli" in the title of the category would appear to be totally inappropriate. Davshul (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a full CfD is needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to full discussion at this point. Please make new comments below this line.

• Agree w/Good Olfactory.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't taken a position on whether it should be kept, which I think is the crucial issue. (If kept, then obviously it should be renamed, though.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as Davshul said, these are pre-World War II fascists, only later connected with Israel (and I'm sure by then they had second thoughts). However, even if the category is renamed to encompass pre-Israel events, there is no justification to having it if it can only include two figures. There just aren't many people who can be classified as both Zionist and fascist without engaging in original research. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is with "Israeli". Fascists they were by their own admission!--MacRusgail (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—for the reasons stated by me in my comments on the speedy capitalization change (shown above), and reinforced by Ynhockey. Both the words "Israeli" and "Fascist" (having regard to the latter's present connotations) are inappropriate. Davshul (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they aren't "inappropriate". These folk were self-described Fascists. We can't rewrite history just because Mussolini decided to ally himself with the most notorious anti-Semite in history later on. "Israeli" may be anachronistic in this context, but certainly the individuals concerned lasted beyond Israeli independence. Jewish people can be far right as well you know.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both individuals were major parts of self-described fascist organizations and this defining characteristic is part of the well-defined parent Category:Fascists by nationality. We have a standard of connecting all pre-1948 residents of Mandatory Palestine in categories named for Israel. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fascists of British Palestine 76.66.197.30 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Anachronistic, etc. --GHcool (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Israeli" is slightly anachronistic (not completely, since these people were alive in an independent Israel), but to claim this was before Fascism acquired its modern meaning is nonsense.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is unnecessary to create a category the includes two people who participated in a notably unsuccessful and brief attempt to emulate Italian fascism.Josh02138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh02138 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Category:Lexington class cruisers to Category:Lexington class battlecruisers. --Xdamr^talk 15:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lexington class cruisers to Category:Lexington class battlecruisers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article of the category, Lexington class battlecruiser. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Planned aircraft carriers to Category:Proposed aircraft carriers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Planned implies that it is likely going to happen. Proposed does not imply that it is going to happen. I'm pretty sure that CVA-01 is not still in the planning process. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a more complex split since some of the entries represent ships where construction really started but they were never finished. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would having something like Category:Abandoned aircraft carrier projects as a subcat of Category:Proposed aircraft carriers work? It would fit rather nicely into Category:Abandoned military projects. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now if someone wants to split hairs you have all of the variations, but they can all be subcategories if we ever need to do that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a related discussion here to merge Category:Future aircraft carriers into Category:Planned aircraft carriers. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --Xdamr^talk 15:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Puebla Fútbol Club to Category:Puebla F.C.

Propose renaming Category:Puebla FC players to Category:Puebla F.C. players (over redirect)

Propose renaming Category:Puebla fc football logos to Category:Puebla F.C. logos

Propose renaming Category:Puebla managers to Category:Puebla F.C. managers

Propose renaming Category:Puebla FC jersey to Category:Puebla F.C. jerseys

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To standardize all names with the main article Puebla F.C.. The final one might be renamed Category:Puebla F.C. images as I can't see a single other category with "jerseys". Tassedethe (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 into Category:Companies based in Indiana or Category:Defunct companies based in Indiana. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historic Indiana Businesses to Category:Companies based in Indiana or Category:Defunct companies based in Indiana

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No indication that these are historic businesses in a definable way e.g listed on the NRHP. Merge to the existing categories Category:Companies based in Indiana and Category:Defunct companies based in Indiana as necessary. Tassedethe (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination modified to what I believe is intended. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 2 ways per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and upmerge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Film schools in Philippines to Category:Film schools in the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper country name per WP:NCCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Birds of Congo to Category:Birds of the Republic of the Congo

Propose renaming Category:1997 in the Republic of Congo to Category:1997 in the Republic of the Congo

Propose renaming Category:1998 in the Republic of Congo to Category:1998 in the Republic of the Congo

Propose renaming Category:1999 in the Republic of Congo to Category:1999 in the Republic of the Congo

Propose renaming Category:Biosphere reserves of Congo to Category:Biosphere reserves of the Republic of the Congo

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to proper country name, per WP:NCCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match the article Republic of the Congo, which is mandated by the category naming conventions on "how to name countries". Good catches. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cinema of Cote d'Ivoire to Category:Cinema of Côte d'Ivoire

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper country name per WP:NCCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match the article Côte d'Ivoire, which is mandated by the category naming conventions on "how to name countries". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Olfactory.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Administrative closure: deleted per request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Telugu scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty Category that I created to be deleted - Thaejas (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:People of the First Anglo-Chinese War to Category:People of the First Opium War
• Category:People of the Second Anglo-Chinese War to Category:People of the Second Opium War
• Category:British people of the First Anglo-Chinese War to Category:British people of the First Opium War
• Category:British military personnel of the First Anglo-Chinese War to Category:British military personnel of the First Opium War
• Category:British people of the Second Anglo-Chinese War to Category:British people of the Second Opium War
• Category:British military personnel of the Second Anglo-Chinese War to Category:British military personnel of the Second Opium War

Nominator's rationale: Should be renamed for consistency with the articles since "Opium War" is the more common term. And since France was a participant, "Anglo-Chinese" can be misleading. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• REname per nom. I have never heard these wars referred to other than as the Opium wars. They were a shameful episode in British imperialism when the British East India company wanted to impose opium trade on the Chinese, so that they did not have to pay for tea with silver bullion. Opium was illegal in China: the Chinese (unlike the 19th century British) were well aware of the drug's harmfulness. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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