< August 30 September 1 >

August 31

Category:Rising Tide Records singles

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) 22:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL, zero chance for expansion. Label was only in business for a year, and this was their only hit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 31 August 2013 (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.

Actresses by language

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) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is the people have been categorized by the language of their film. A lot of actresses have appeared in Tamil, and Hindi and Telugu films. These all seem to be notable parts of the careers of the women involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is we already renamed the parents to such things as Category:Actors in Bengali cinema. If we want to come to some other final name, then we should rename those as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (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.

High Courts of South Africa

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) 22:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose:
The Superior Courts Act, 2013 merged the various "High Courts" of South Africa, each named "X High Court", into a single "High Court of South Africa" divided into divisions named "X Division". The articles have already been renamed (see High Court of South Africa) and the corresponding categories need to be renamed accordingly. - htonl (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2013 (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.

Syrian Categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge/rename/delete. Consensus was that the current name is not correct. While there may be some objection to Ottoman Syria, further upmerges to Ottoman Empire can be considered in the future if that is really needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rname. This is the first of a series on noms for annual categories for Syria. This category houses Massacre of Aleppo (1850). We seem to have a tree for "Ottoman Syria", but the precedent on Turkey, might suggest merging direect to Category:1850s in the Ottoman Empire, itself not heavily populated.
Most of the articles seem to be about buildings mainly in Damascus, categorised according to their year of establishment. One 19th century Syrian category has previously been merged into an Ottoman Empire one. Almost all are single article categories with a hierachy above them with annual, annual establishment, decade, and decade establishment categories above them. I consider that it is not necessary to have any level below decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating:
Many of the double merge (upmerge) items are only tagged for a single merge: I did not think it worth altering the tag. This covers all the "Syria" categories for 1500-1900. Comment on how to deal with earlier centuries would be approeciated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of this comment I have added to the nom a series of "the Ottoman Empire" alternatives. I have not checked which are renames and which are merges, and hope I am not leaving a nightmare for the closing admin. That is my preference, but when I found there was already an "Ottoman Syria" tree, I considered that I should nominate that. The rest of the Ottoman Syria tree will need to be felled, but that requires a separate nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (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:Islamophobic forgeries

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 to delete; there does seem to be a very rough consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Islamophobic" is a pov label. Loomspicker (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't look at the contents. But your rename rationale is simply invalid, it's pushing your own personal POV instead of adhering to policy, and as such, I oppose it procedurally. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that this is a POV-pushing title, which clearly means we should delete. Point of View pushing titles are not acceptable in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not POV pushing in the Wikipedia sense, but it is the mainstream view rather than the view of the far right extremists. // Liftarn (talk)
No, that is not how it works. You do not get to define one view as "mainstream" and then marginzalize the majority of the population who holds other views as "far-right extremists". "Far right extremist" is just a way to marginalize your political opponents and clearly shows that you are engaged in POV-pushing and trying to use Wikipedia category names to delegitimatize your political opponents. "Islamophobic" is the type of POV-pushing name that seeks to normalize one view and denormalize anyone opposed to it that Wikipedia should avoid as the plague it is. Nothing more screems "this is POV-pushing" than the claim that anyone who does not accept your tainted rhetoric of questioning the mental helath of those who hold a different view is an "extremist".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is exactly how it works. Wikipedia should report the mainstream view as described by reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)
To claim any of these as "Islamaphobic" is OR putting description words onto these things that are not anywhere contained in the article. We should stop using such loaded political attack words, especially for things written in 1987.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
did you mean: Category:Antisemitic forgeries? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So that should be renamed to Anti-Judaism forgeries? // Liftarn (talk)
Yes, sorry about my spelling. Seyasirt (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category is far too specialized to be populated under its current name, whilst renaming may give it a chance of being populated.--Loomspicker (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2013 (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:Columbia University publications

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: do not rename; presumably, Category:Columbia University Press academic journals could just be created as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Convention, the books should fall into Category:Columbia University Press books. SL7968 09:47, 31 August 2013 (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:Newkirk Viaduct Monument

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) 21:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having one's name on a monument is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. For info: there is a list at Newkirk Viaduct Monument. DexDor (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (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:Football at the Pan Arab Games navigational boxes

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:Pan Arab Games navigational boxes and Category:Association football navigational boxes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Football at the Pan Arab Games navigational boxes to Category:all parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category contains one entry. 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2013 (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.
More