Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20[edit]

Category:Persons convicted of fraud[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revision to close. Clearly, I should have closed this as rename to Category:People convicted of fraud, since there are no other categories beginning with "persons." So I'm re-closing it as a rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Persons convicted of fraud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was previously deleted and then that deletion reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 9. I closed that review as no consensus; my close was then challenged. I still consider my initial close valid, but as I said in the close, I think a new CFD is appropriate. As no one else is opening one, I am now doing so. The question is whether this category is sufficiently distinct from Category:Fraudsters to merit inclusion on biographies of people convicted of fraud but not primarily associated with fraud. Please consider the merits only; all previous actions are irrelevant. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as Chick Bowen says, this has just gone through a CfD and DRV, and I see no reason whatsoever to treat these previous actions as "irrelevant". Some people appear unwilling to accept community decisions unless they go the "right" way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but for the purposes of moving on and bringing this to a resolution, would you mind addressing the merits in addition? Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was brought to a resolution. Opening a new discussion undoes that -- it's the opposite of bringing it to a resolution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be perfectly willing to accept a "community decision", but none of the actions taken have reflected such a decision. Arguably there was a consensus for keeping this category and for overturning the bogus delete result (11-7 ... with one of those 7 being the closer's self endorsement). There is no way to argue that there was remotely any consensus that went the other way. The decisions in question are, in other words, not those of the community, but those of two separate admins. I am perfectly unwilling to accept those types of decisions as if they were "community decisions". Indeed, my outrage at this process has been exactly the fact that the community's voice has been trampled here all along. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category was originally created to include several politicians who were forced to resign their positions following allegations and convictions of fraud. In each case the fraud or the criminal trials were connected to their notability. In the general scheme of categoriess, people who merit inclusion in criminal categories are all convicts, but there are some important exceptions such as those who die prior to their final conviction. It would be disruptive to require that all members of criminal categories have been convicted, even though most of them should be. For that reason, "Persons convicted of fraud" should not replace "Fraudsters". The second issue is that some editors have asserted that "fraudster" implies a career criminal. However there is no evidence of this. No dictionary has been found to support this definition of the word. We categorize other people for singular crimes as murderers, traitors, or perjurors, even when they do not make careers out of those activities. No reason has been given for why those who commit fraud should be treated differently. Therefore this category is redundant with Category:Fraudsters.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think it's unnecessary, it's harmlessly redundant. Keep, since there's no particular need to delete it.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I and an number of editors (including Jimmy Wales) have expressed concerns about the category "fraudsters" being applied to BLPs. For myself, I've no problem with it being applied to people who principally are known for fraudulent practices (that is conmen etc. - see Frank Abagnale Jr ymmv). But, with people convicted of expenses fraud etc, pejoratively labelling them "fraudsters" is simply not neutral. Now, you may disagree - but what can possibly be the objection to using a more precise and utterly ambiguous category for BLPs like "convicted of fraud" in such cases? Seriously what? As I say, I've no objection to "fraudsters" also existing for cases where it is unambiguously appropriate (although if people want to merge it into this, that's fine too). The comparison to murder is misleading. A person who murdered 50 years ago is still known as a murderer, the crime is singularly significant enough to define the individual. However, Winona Ryder who was convicted of "grand theft, shoplifting and vandalism" could not neutrally be put in Category:thieves or Category:Vandals or even Category:Shoplifters, could she?--Scott Mac 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. also happy for a rename to "people convicted of...".--Scott Mac 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be more comfortable placing Ryder in a Category:People convicted of grand theft. Pichpich (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's already in Category:People convicted of theft.--Scott Mac 00:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. I will now shut up. (But I still think it's silly to put her in that category) Pichpich (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easy choice, as per WP:BLP type . err on the side of caution and do no harm positions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is sorely needed in BLP cases especially but also anytime there has been a conviction of fraud but reliable sources do not call the individual in question a "fraudster", or any of the term's synonyms. There is absolutely no reason why the two categories can't coexist. Regarding the prior CfD and DRV, I urge people to actually take a thorough look. There was never a consensus to delete. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create, or whatever. I think the differences between this at Category:Fraudsters seem obvious enough, and for BLP concerns alone at least this category should exist. But most of all, I still think the previous CfD and DRV discussions still got this wrong. --InkSplotch (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep in present format. Categories use "people", not "persons", for category names like this. No opinion on other issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename as suggested by Good Olfactory - the fact that a person was covicted of some crime is true forevr, even should the conviction be overturned, and can be verified. A "fraudster", on the other hand, can't be verified except by trusting the conviction - and if the conviction is later overturned, then for us to call the person a "fraudster" is a BLP violation. I can easily see thge posibility that in some situation, an opponent of a person suspected of fraud will watch the trial, andthe moment the suspect is convicted, he would make asure that Wikipedia is updated; the suspect (now permanently a "peson convicted of fraud") then would appeal, the conviction overturned, but no one update tjings here for a long time - in that case, calling him a "fraudster" is a majoir BLP violation. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fraudster is someone who is notable (maybe not worldwide, but to the relevant group of people) for having committed a fraud. "Persons convicted of fraud" do not need to be notable for this, and thus the category "Persons convicted of fraud" will attract entries of people who are not notable for committing the fraud, contrary to the BLP policy, which requires us to add only notable negative information about living persons.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Why does this category only have one entry. Surely, many more people have been convicted of fraud. Where are the entries? Hmains (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: the proposal to rename "Fraudsters" to "People convicted of fraud" has failed on three previous occasions (1, 2, 3). Scott and others are denying that this new category is meant to replace "fraudsters" and are claiming that this is not a renaming discussion -- but that is exactly what it will have become if the new category is kept: we will then see "fraudsters" removed from virtually all articles where it currently resides and replaced by "people convicted of fraud". What matters is what is on the articles -- and what will happen there is precisely a renaming of the category in question. The point is entirely obvious from the fact that "people convicted of fraud" is populated by only one entry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It had several entries prior to deletion - all BLPs and all cases where pejoratively labelling the subject a "fraudster" on the basis of a conviction from wrongful expenses claims would have violated NPOV. As I've said, I'm fine with category:fraudsters remaining for people who undoubtedly are such. But I've get to hear one argument why it isn't better to use the more factually descriptive term on BLPs of persons whoose fraud does not define their career.--Scott Mac 09:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for those people actually convicted of fraud by a court of law, within Category:Fraudsters, for people (usually dead) known to have committed fraud and cited in reliable sources as having done so, but not actually convicted of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate but rename to Category:People convicted of fraud. This is a perfectly straightforward category with clear, well-defined inclusion criteria (unlike the ill-defined Category:Fraudsters about which there is no agreement whatever about who should be included, to judge from the various cfd discussions). Occuli (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or better yet rename to "People ..." per Good Ol'factory. Category:Fraudsters is horribly vague, and the "People convicted of fraud" category should replace it in most cases, but I don't object to it being kept for undoubted fraudsters like Liz Carmichael who managed to avoid being convicted. Neither category should contain the other. --Avenue (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an objectively named category. No labeling. Just the unvarnished truth. npov in the best tradition of an encyclopedia. Among its other failures, "Fraudster" sounds funny in American English. It sounds made-up as though the author couldn't think of the right word. I appreciate that it does not have the same affect in other dialects, but why use it when there is a superior alternative, such as this category? Student7 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scott Mac, no objection to the rename proposed by Good Ol’factory, and actually mildly in favor of keeping the fraudsters category as I think one could be those convicted and the other for those primarily known for fraud. Of course RSes would have to be found that make it clear that _is_ what they are primarily known for. I do think that some people could be in both... Hobit (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "People convicted of fraud": Ideally, I don't think this category should exist separately from Category:Fraudsters because I find it much preferable to the latter. Of the three prior CFDs that Nomoskedasticity, the first was a broad attempt at many categories (while "Fraudsters" has a number of issues, as per above comments), the second seemed to be weighted towards renaming, and the third involved, in my opinion, rather ridiculous comments. I would prefer to see this relisted as a reverse merger. If "Fraudsters" is for people notable for their alleged (but unproven?) fraud, that category should be renamed as such. The problem is not with this category. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody who is alleged but not been proved to have committed a crime should be in any of these categories. But you don't have to be convicted in a court of law for it to be proved that you've committed a crime, although such categorisation should usually be reserved for the deceased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as "People convicted of fraud" per the above excellent discussion which needs no further elaboration. Hmains (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This cat is specific and clear - either the so-and-so was convicted of fraud or he wasn't.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (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:Potential Egyptian presidential candidates, 2011[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Potential Egyptian presidential candidates, 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Speculative, liable to change quickly and therefore inappropriate for categorization per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OC#CANDIDATES. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No potential as a category. Occuli (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Absolutely no potential as a category and also populated by speculation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pure speculation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the election deets actually firm up and there are official candidates actually campaigning for real, then a category for the actual candidates will probably be appropriate — but in the meantime, there is absolutely no place on Wikipedia for a speculative category to contain people who might be candidates. Bearcat (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2011 (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:Science fiction action films[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: speedy keep, CFD started by a sock puppet of a de facto banned user in violation of ban. –MuZemike 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American science fiction adventure films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant, If science fiction adventure is redundant, so is science fiction action. Why can there be only science fiction action but no science fiction adventure. There are bazillions of science fiction and action cats in sci fi action film articles.TITandNICK (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad faith nomination by OP due to their recently created category having been nominated. Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 20 February 2011 (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.

Literature from/of location[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: Mixed; Rename Category:Georgian literature to Category:Literature of Georgia (country); relist the others for wider discussion. There's no clear direction of preference for the others so far. Relisted discussion here. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following:

Rationalle: These should all use the same pattern. Note that while the Georgia (country) still uses the "Fooian literature" patern, once oone of these paterns is established it would be speedsy renamable under C2B - per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28#Category:Georgian culture, where the parent category was renamed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:45, 20 February 2011 (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.

California directors[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Television directors from California to Category:American television directors
Propose merging Category:Theatre directors from California to Category:American theatre directors
Nominator's rationale: Merge, overly specific occupational subdivision by subnational entity. This just makes it harder to find these articles, because by no means are you going to want to search for an article only based on their state of origin (which may or may not be where they actually performed their career). So if they are to be linked to California in some way, it can't be by the most specific career categories on their articles, but instead should be intersected with some more general occupational level (just as Bob Dylan is in Category:American folk singers and Category:Musicians from Minnesota, not Category:American folk singers from Minnesota). postdlf (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge in this way at this time. Following the category parents, these are part of Category:American people by occupation by state. Unless this entire branch of the category tree is going to be approved for merging in some way or another, there is no reason to just choose two of its subcats for merging. There is nothing to stop editors from putting people into this category tree structure as well as into more general US occupational cats structure. Proper purpose/use statements in the categories would help if that is what is desired. Hmains (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are the only two subdivisions of theatre directors or television directors by state, so there is no "tree" or other structure at issue here, just these two. As I said, if they are to be linked to California in some way," it should be at "some more general occupational level". That could be Category:California media people (the current parent, though not a category I necessarily think is a good one), it could be some other more general category than the current two. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as suggested by nom. I also support his second point regarding the possibility of using Category:California media people to hold the state-level info. Pichpich (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2011 (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:Circassian Ottomans[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Circassian Ottomans to Category:Ottoman Circassians
Nominator's rationale: Merge (self-explanatory). Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion I don't really think that the categories about the origin are important in Ottoman Empire . I created the category just because I saw that the categories about are origin are common in Wikipedia and I wanted to go with the crowd. At the time of creation, I didn't know the existence of Category: Ottoman Circassian . OK, Category:Circassian Ottomans can be merged to Category:Ottoman Circassians. But out of curiosity, which is grammatically better ? Circassin (adjective) Ottoman or Ottoman (adjective) Circassian ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. To be an "Ottoman" as a noun one really has to be a member of the Imperial family. Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (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:Belasitsa Petrich[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Belasitsa Petrich to Category:PFC Belasitsa Petrich
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the name of its subcategory and the prevailing convention in Category:Bulgarian football clubs and the wider standard for football clubs of similar names. Pichpich (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - category should match article name. Jogurney (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. jonkerz♠ 21:47, 20 February 2011 (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:American science fiction adventure films[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American science fiction adventure films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant; there are other categories that cover science fiction and adventure films. -5- (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Then we would have to eliminate the various science fiction and action cats from films such as the matrix, since science fiction action covers all. if you going to delete my cat, also delete the hundreds of cats related to science fiction and action in lots of sci-fi action films. Keep in mind that allmovie lists X-men: The Last Stand as Sci-Fi Adventure and Back to the future is widely considered a sci-fi adventure film. Sorry, if science-fiction adventure is redundant, so is science-fiction action. 12:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TITandNICK (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: TITandNick's comment above only suggests Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. That article went under review a while ago. If you are going to make claims that it's "widely considered" something, you better provide some sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's wel agreed that Back to the Future, JP and Star Wars are science-fiction adventures. Im going to nominate science fiction action for deletion too — Preceding unsigned comment added by TITandNICK (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 February 2011 (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:Keyboards (computing)[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Keyboards (computing) to Category:Computer keyboards
Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid parenthetical dab, and according to recently renamed main article Computer keyboard. Pnm (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename per nominator.Griswaldo (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2011 (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:Danish refugees[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: Speedy deleted on author's request. Pichpich (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting. Category:Danish refugees
Nominator's rationale: Accidental creation (the correct wording is "IN Denmark"). Denmark doesn't seem to generate its own refugees, so category is very likely wholly unnecessary. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 20 February 2011 (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:List of Films Shot Near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:List of Films Shot Near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada to Category:Films shot in British Columbia
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to parent, no need to have such a specific category for 2 articles. Tassedethe (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timrollpickering (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - category is too specific/underpopulated. jonkerz♠ 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. The category is indeed too specific and underpopulated.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. A Vancouver Island subcategory would be fine, though, if somebody wants to take the plunge on that. Bearcat (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2011 (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:Film designers by nationality[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film designers by nationality to Category:Production designers by nationality
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Production designers. Five of the seven subcats (including the one I just created for Canada) are "FOOian production designers." So I recommend we rename for consistency. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Pnm (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (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/2011_February_20&oldid=1127753695"