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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Race and intelligence but having a "controversy" suffix on the category name seems to be confusing. Obviously there is a concern to sort out the science and the pseudoscience, but having a category not match its main article name is a poor way to attempt to accomplish that.--Standardfact (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article, which has a long history of contested edits, does have the race/intelligence controversy at its core. Race and intelligence controversy is a redirect to main article, although I admit I have not taken the time to search through the lengthy talk page archives to see how the final article name was arrived at. This category was kept unanimously following a CfD in 2007 and is a subcategory of the Race, Factors related to intelligence and Controversies categories. Neither the main article nor nominated category is a sub-cat of the Pseudoscience category (should it be?) and I don't believe that's a factor in the current name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no doubt, that there actually IS a controversy - and this category does gather opposing views - thus "Race and intelligence" would almost be a misnomer, well, at least misleading. 217.236.197.114 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject matter is a controversy, so that word should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 30 August 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge overly narrow category with unclear growth potential. Suggest not upmerging to Category:James Bond films since that is for the actual Bond series films. Otto4711 (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the proposed target category is for all television documentaries, regardless of the subject matter, I'd say that if a merge is in order, Category:Documentaries about films is a more likely choice. I've also added that as a master category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I vote to upmerge to eponymous Category:James Bond. There's likely a decent number of notable non-fiction works about the Bond franchise this would be a good way to group them until such time as a Non-fiction works about James Bond, or something along that line, is justified. Right now it is not, per OC SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, why the latter, if I may ask? All James Bond documentaries will be documentaries about film, but not all will necessarily be TV docs (though in this case, both clearly are). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any last minute arrivals, we are only concerned with these three. "All James Bond documentaries will be documentaries about film" - no! Ian Fleming: Where Bond Began is essentially about the books (as are 2 more tv docs not in the category I have seen), but of course the other 2 can be added to Category:Documentaries about films. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely replying to the speculation by the nominator about "unclear growth potential". If you look at the entry for Ian Fleming in the IMDB you will see there have been many documentaries about James Bond. With the 50th anniversary of the film Dr No in 2012 and the ongoing interest in James Bond, there will clearly be more. They will not all be of the standard of those in the category but it would be surprising if some of them were not worth including. All I am saying is that unlike Otto4711 I do see potential for growth in the category. Cjc13 (talk) 18:34, 25 August 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - expand the abbreviation and change to the common and correctly pluralized "images". It appears these are all in the public domain, so should these be migrated to Commons and the category deleted instead? Image policy confuses me. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The accepted name here is "World War II". There are no other instances of "WW2". Debresser (talk) 17:48, 25 August 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.
Strong merge to Category:Bosnian War as per nominator. Indeed, I strongly oppose categorising events into yearly categories. That is an utterly irrelevant way of categorisation. What does it matter if a city was bombed in 1995 or in 1994? Debresser (talk) 17:46, 25 August 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete or redefine more narrowlyRename to Category:Latin American film festivals per below. This category groups, by my count, at least three different types of film festivals: 1) Hispanic and Latino American film festivals in the United States 2) Subcategories for Film festivals by Latin American nation, which include international film festivals that are not exclusively or even primarily "Latino" in terms of their programming focus (e.g. see the awards list at Buenos Aires International Festival of Independent Cinema) 3) film festivals in Europe of the global or "north/south" variety, which show films from South America along with Africa, Asia, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename without the o: I think your objection to (2) is weak, as most film festivals in South American nations will naturally be predominantly Latino. I don't see any harm in this category, and have revised the declared purpose to match the contents. - Fayenatic(talk) 21:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amenable to dropping the "o," and the refined category definition Fayenatic has provided. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 1 September 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:Delete. If some individual actors are Pakistani, they can be added to the category, but I would rather not take the chance that they are all Pakistani. NW(Talk) 22:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this much different than the category "Category:Pakistani television actors"? (Sorry, when I link the cat, it disappears.) Maybe I'm missing the point here, but it seems redundant. Mbinebritalk ← 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Put a colon before Category and it won't disappear. Appears to be a mis-capitalized duplicate of existing category. Delete per WP:OC#PERF, per Good Olfactory, below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The definition says these are not Pakistani television actors but rather actors who have been employed by the Pakistan Television Corporation; hence "Pakistan Television" actors—not Pakistani "television actors". That being said, this amounts to a fairly routine "performer by performance" category (actor by television station), and should accordingly be deleted. They may or may not all be of Pakistani nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - however, this is a sub-category of the proposed target. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the category definition is accurate, it probably shouldn't be, unless 100% of the actors appearing on Pakistan Television programmes are Pakistani. That's what Template:CatRel is for. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performer by performance/employer. Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All these actors were employed by Pakistan Television (how did I not catch that to begin with?), so they're performers categorized by employer. Mbinebritalk ← 04:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and hope they are all Pakistanis! We don't have a category for BBC Actors, nor should we. - Fayenatic(talk) 22:13, 31 August 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 (though I don't think this qualifies as a #4 speedy, since it is not included in the list of enumerated naming conventions).Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:28, 31 August 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/rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. It is clear that author of this category uses 'thermal power station' as a synonym for 'coal-fired power station'. Thermal power station is not a standard categorization currently used for power stations. If it is decided that the category has to remain, it should include coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar thermal electric, waste incineration stations, as also most of natural gas power stations as subcategories. It is not clear what should be the added value of this categorization. Beagel (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mining disasters in the People's Republic of China[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:No consensus. (Typically, categories for "China" serve as categories that can contain subcategories for PRC & ROC, and also articles for pre-ROC events.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Overcategorization. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose These are separate countries and so these two categories are non-mergable. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The People's Republic of China is also a part of China; therefore, they can't be different countries. Please do not confuse China and the Republic of China. Beagel (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge -- Thise in the target appear all to be in PRC, not Taiwan. If I am wrong, the Taiwanese cases should be purged and placed in a differnet category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why just category for China is not enough? China definitely covers also the People's Republic of China. If there will be any mining disaster's article related to Taivan, it is possible to reconsider and create more specific categories. Beagel (talk) 17:13, 30 August 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:Keep. Present names conform to the established naming conventions - suggest either discussion to amend guidelines or a nomination to rename non-conforming categories. --Xdamrtalk 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Spedily rename According to Wikipedia:Cfd#Speedy_criteria #4 this is a valid speedy criteria. The previous editor can nominate them all afterwards for a rename, if he so like. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the applicable naming convention states that the subcategories of Category:Plays by author should be named in the format "[Works] by [Person]". Apparently this convention is not followed widely. But this change is certainly not speediable since it directly contradicts the enumerated convention. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These conform with the convention. The others that use "PERSON plays" do not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:36, 27 August 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.
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Environmental organizations based in South Africa[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Duplicate categories. I would have thought that SA English spells it organisations (per Category:Organisations based in South Africa) but I note spelling is not consistent. Tassedethe (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator, into "organiSations". Debresser (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I belive that South Africa uses British orthography. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 August 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.
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 25 August 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.
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 25 August 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.
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 25 August 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match parent category above. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 25 August 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.
