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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Suggested rename to conform with the title of the article about the novel (Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea) and the naming convention for categories of films based on other works. Trivialist (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match the main article on the novel. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 20:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what your saying. But I'm not sure I agree. How about we rename it for now and hold a separate delete discussion afterwards. Charles Essie (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, I'm okay with renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case let's rename it now and then start a delete discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Alright, let's close this discussion and start a delete discussion. If the outcome is in favor of keeping it we can either move this category or (and this might be better) move the main article to Syrian National Coalition. Charles Essie (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2016 (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:True Path Party (Turkey) politicians[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 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 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:Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)[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 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:withdrawn. --Tavix(talk) 20:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The deference between Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism is small enough that I don't think having separate categories for organizations and political parties is necessary. I also think that categories for "pan-Arab" groups (e.i. organizations and parties that span several or all the Arab countries regardless of ideology) would be much more useful. Charles Essie (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The adjectival form of Pan-Arabism is pan-Arabist. This is an ideology that seeks to unite all Arabs. It is not necessarily the same as pan-Arab which may accept national boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: That's the whole point. You read the "nominator's rationale" didn't you? Charles Essie (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is about organizations that are active in most or all of the Arab states. Not every Arab organization is active throughout the region. Some are limited to just one country and others are diaspora-based. Charles Essie (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt whether it's useful to make such a distinction. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose creating trans-national political categories because they have a unifying transnational identity makes sense. However we should not group together political parties that happen to exist in multiple Arab countries without having an Arabist philosophy with those that do. This is meant to be a category grouping political parties by their ideology, and I see no good reason to change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm conceding. Let's close this one up. Charles Essie (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2016 (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: 18 stubs, no sign of potential growth, no equivalent permcat. Not useful. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My thoughts exactly ;) Grutness...wha? 01:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge per nom. Peterkingiron, I don't think you understand how stub type nominations here work. Categories are only populated by templates. As such, when a template is repointed (i.e., the template is upmerged, as in the nom), the stubs are automatically upmerged. The category becomes permanently empty and should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: I had not correctly appreciated the effect of merging a stub category. Some kind of upmerge should always be necessary. Nevertheless, it would be helpful, if noms could indicate where the deleted stub-type is to be merged. I know that stubs for deletion used to be a separate discussion, which was merged to CFD. Clearly the rules are slightly different from ordinary CFDs. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are - which is why it used to be a separate process page :) Stub categories are always merged to whatever their parent stub categories are - so in this case Category:South Shetland Islands geography stubsGrutness...wha? 00:43, 27 July 2016 (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: Basically the same topic, WP:OVERLAP and this category title uses singular form instead of plural. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support -- Nevertheless, I am far from happy that all the attacks are actually on marketplaces, rather than merely on places where people shop, or perhaps just town centres. "Mall" is an American term and should not be applied to other countries. IN UK, I would distinguish between (1) markets, held in marketplaces usually (or originally) on temporary stalls (2) shopping centres, usually a purpose-built development of shops, approached by a pedestrianised way, usually with external doors (3) shopping streets, where individual shops front to a public highway. "Shopping places" might be a neutral solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: My proposal follows Category:Shopping malls. The UK may have its "shopping centres" exception, and I'm even open to renaming the whole tree, as IMO shopping malls are just a particular type of shopping center, which may be the dominating type in the U.S. and some other countries, but not necessarily in other parts of the world. That discussion however needs to be started at Talk:Shopping mall. --PanchoS (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Actually, another common type of shopping center is what Americans call a strip mall or a power center, outside the U.S. known as a retail park. So all we need to do is expand Shopping center into an overview article, and we should be prepared to nominate Category:Shopping malls for a rename to Category:Shopping centers. --PanchoS (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: My answer was no, thus my alt rename proposal. The naming of Category:Attacks on marketplaces is out of scope here, so we shouldn't get distracted by that, but I think that one should not be renamed to Category:Attacks on retail markets, as it is specifically about marketplaces, which may be similar to other retail markets in terms of commerce, but not in terms of being a particularly relevant central locality. --PanchoS (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got distracted indeed :-) Support alt rename to shopping malls/shopping centres. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these are clearly two ways to say the same thing. I challenge anyone to explain how one is different than the other. So we should merge them. I have to admit I am less concerned with the exact wording, but this should be one category, not two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (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.
Oppose except Mammals of Western Sahara, as it's not a sovereign country. This is a defining characteristic. Categorization of animals by country is useful and encyclopedically valid (in Category:Mammals of Europe, for instance, there are several country-specific subcats). Brandmeistertalk 10:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization of species by country leads to a large number of category tags on some articles (especially when we had such categories for countries like Andorra, Jersey and Monaco) - often where the article doesn't even mention those countries (so can hardly be a defining characteristic). A list is a much better way to present a list of the animals found in any particular country (or other region such as a particular nature reserve) - for example, a list can contain extra information such as "occasional visitor" or "only in the far South of the country". Also the lists tend to be much more complete - it's common to come across cases (especially with insects) where the list has several hundred entries, but the corresponding category only has a handful (and see comment at Category:Mammals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo). Regarding Category:Mammals of Europe (note: I've just removed several subcategories from that category) you may want to see this CFD; the country categories that remain in that category are either (1) where we categorize by a geographical region that is also a country (e.g. Greenland) or for trans-continental countries (e.g. Turkey). In the latter case a bit more work is needed before the category can be deleted (example). DexDor(talk) 12:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – there should be a local category, 'Mammals endemic to foo' for which foo is indeed defining. No country is a defining characteristic of the European rabbit: ubiquity is its main defining geographical characteristic. Listing animals by country is a different matter. Oculi (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Where ecosystem's match national borders (usually islands) a category makes sense. But animals don't recognize the political border between Algeria and Tunisia. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Continents are too large for biota categories, but countries are too small. This is a good solution, but I might have preferred if the split were between the North African littoral (including the Atlas Mountains) and the Sahara. Going south the next category would be the Sahel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Makes sense to have a regional category for animal species as political borders are often irrelevant. In this case, the North Africa region includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara. Note that most of Western Sahara is actually under the control of Morocco, and has been under its control since 1979. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2016 (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 to Category:Attacks on restaurants. This will satisfy those advocating for both deletion and a merge, which were the majority in numbers and arguments here. --Tavix(talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF and WP:TRIVIALCAT - the fact that these incidents all occurred at McDonald's restaurants is not a defining characteristic of any of them; one could easily substitute another fast food chain (e.g. KFC) or even another organization altogether (e.g. Safeway) in instead of McDonald's, and there would be no difference in the notability of the incidents. ansh666 01:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pancho's suggestion sounds reasonable to me, though any added for the first category should still have sources saying they were specifically targeted. ansh666 17:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I expected the incidents would be related to McDonald's products but none of them are. This is categorisation by shared retail outlet. Oculi (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a locational category, based on the site's reputation and notability. It has the same status as incidents in mosques, incidents in London etc. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. If kept this incidents category should be moved out of the disasters category. DexDor(talk) 13:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fast-food restaurants are particularly impersonal and have a high and fast flow of customers, therefore facilitating lone-wolf types of violent crimes.
Fast-food restaurants have been criticized for representing the American way of life, or American cultural imperialism, which led to quite a number of anti-American incidents of different sorts, only few of them currently covered by their own articles here, but notable enough to get one at some point.
Fast-food restaurants have also been specifically targeted by environmentalist, bioregionalist and labor-rights groups for issues of waste, transport corporate ethics, destructive use of resources, labor relations etc. --PanchoS (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Rename I expected to vote delete based on this conversation but the McDonald's-ness of the location seems defining in the articles. The name is terrible though; Category:Attacks at McDonald's would better describe the existing contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem defining to me. McDonald's wasn't specifically targeted in most (if not all) of them; it's just where the attacks occurred. The attacks could have been somewhere else but just as notable. ansh666 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Attacks on restaurants and purge of anything that does not fit that. "Incidents" is too broad for a useful category: bad meals; people arrested while eating dinner; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that these attacks all occured in McDonalds does not really connect them at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading the articles, it seems clear what ties them together is that the perps selected McDonald's as a venue, like diplomatic posts and airports, both of which have categories. Regardless of whether it's seen as a surrogate for American/Western values or imperialism (depending on perspective) or of globalization, or as a place that doesn't protect is customers, or it'll be a bigger press coverage, is immaterial. What links them is that McDonald's were targeted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I don't see anything in any of the articles that McDonalds was specifically chosen or targeted by the perpetrators for any reason. ansh666 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Attacks on restaurants. None of these were motivated by anti-McDonald's sentiment, so why distinguish them from similar types of incidents at other restaurants? In the case of David Sonboly, it appears he chose McDonald's because it was a place where many people would be - not due to him having anything against McDonald's. Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2016 (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 as is, since the main article is titled Antisemitic canard. If the article were to be renamed via WP:RM, however, the category can be speedy renamed. --Tavix(talk) 23:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Firstly, as standard article naming conventions apply to categories (Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions), "conspiracy theory" is much more common than the French word "canard" for English readers (WP:COMMONNAME). Secondly, but not less importantly, "antisemitic canards" fails the neutral point of view policy. Calling a group of views "false stor[ies] inciting antisemitism" is inherently not neutral. While the prominent mainstream view needs to be made clear when describing fringe theories, they must still be described neutrally and not blatantly dismissed as false, at least as long as NPOV is one of the core content policies. "A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for something" (i.e. "conspiracy theory"), while not perfect, is much better. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, splitting apart Category:Antisemitic conspiracy theories. A canard is tantamount to a hoax, not to a conspiracy theory, so these are different subjects. However, some of these, including Holocaust denial aren't exactly hoaxes – while egregiously false, they aren't freely invented stories, and are better categorized as conspiracy theories. --PanchoS (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, splitting is a side issue anyway. This category here is correct and should be kept as is. --PanchoS (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearer name in English and better matches the rest of the tree. There are some connotation differences as PanchoS mentioned but categorizing articles by those differences seems subjective RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the main article pointed out below. Encourage RM of Main Article then speedy this category. I'm opposed to moving the category name first though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, work on article name first. I'm sympathetic to the nomination but the main article is called Antisemitic canard. I think that efforts should first be made to change the article name, and then change the category name to match, if necessary. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather rename the article to Antisemitic hoaxes, per PanchoS. Hoax is an appropriate term for most of the content of this category and anything that isn't a hoax may be moved one level higher to Category:Antisemitic propaganda. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wording indeed seems a viable proposal, but is out of scope here. --PanchoS (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least for now. The main article is Antisemitic canard and describes 19 specific types of canards, some of which have long histories and others which are relatively new. The term "conspiracy theory" does not seem to accurately describe some of them. One of them is the popular concept that the Jews practice ritual murder and human sacrifice. Very common belief in the Middle Ages, but mostly a fringe view nowadays. Another "canard" is that Jews have an anti-Christian bias, dislike Christianity, or conspire against Christianity. Even the Anti-Defamation League agrees that some examples of Jewish anti-Christianism and bigotry do exist, but disagrees that the canard accurately describes two millennia of Jewish-Christian relations. Another canard concerns the "dual loyalty" of Jews. When having to choose between serving the world Jewry and the country of their birth or allegiance, Jews will supposedly always choose the Jewry. Divided loyalties are not actually unheard of, but the implication that all Jews are potential traitors to their country or serve as a fifth column is highly offensive. Some of these accusations are hoaxes, others are based on long-standing fears and mistrusts of Jews as a whole, and have the potential to reappear in different historical eras and cultural contexts. Dimadick (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2016 (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.
