Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

Category:Homeopathic remedies

Propose merging Category:Homeopathic remedies to Category:Homeopathic preparations

Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories, matching List of homeopathic preparations (whose name was discussed extensively a while back) should be preferred. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have been several discussions of this, most recently this past April. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was April 2009. Do you think that that demonstrates a consensus for merging the other way? Regardless, I think these categories are redundant and should be merged one way or the other. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you on a merge but I don't have any strong views on which way, sorry. I'm sure others will. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the merge as you suggest would be less-POV, in the sense that it should be more palatable to those who hold that homeopathy doesn't "remedy" anything. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is the rationale for preferring "preparations" over "remedies"? Is it simply that there is a dispute as to whether homeopathic preparations "remedy" anything? While I'm sympathetic to that view, in the last discussion, I was convinced by the argument that these are most commonly referred to as "homeopathic remedies". Is this not the case? I think we should call them whatever they are usually called in English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are referred to as medicines (preferred by Homeopaths), remedies (prefered by advertisers) and preparations is also common, and was found to be most neutral presentation on wikipedia - partly for the reason you give. All are common names, but wikipedia would never accept "medicines" so preparations would be the most neutral while still following common. Verbal chat 13:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I rubbed my eyes in disbelief when I saw that this category was at CFD again, because the last time it came up I felt that we had rendered a definitive decision. So for those who can't work up the energy to click on the link to the previous CFD, here is the main paragraph I wrote making the case for retaining Category:Homeopathic remedies:

I would agree that we don't want to use a name that is merely or primarily promotional. However, I don't really think that "Homeopathic remedies" is an unacceptably problematic term in and of itself. To begin with, when I said that it was the "standard term", I meant first and foremost that historically they have always been known and referred to as "Homeopathic remedies". In addition, the term "Homeopathic remedies" is vastly more widely used than "Homeopathic preparations", which is amply confirmed by the huge disparity in G-hits: 22,600 for "Homeopathic preparations" versus 1,160,000 for "Homeopathic remedies". Moreover, the scholarly publications indexed by Google Scholar do not eschew the term in the least -- quite the opposite: 921 hits for "Homeopathic preparations" versus 4,270 hits for "Homeopathic remedies". And the term is used even by those who are strongly opposed to homeopathy, as you can see by the following title (from the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 1995): "Why pharmacists should not sell homeopathic remedies". (italics added) In short, that is simply what they are called, and what they are known as by the public, so it seems to me that that is the term we should use as well. Therefore I Oppose Renaming.

I have nothing further to add. Cgingold (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict)The term used by those opposed to homeopathy is "water" (or sugar, or alcohol, depending on the solvent). Verbal chat 13:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Seems silly to have both, and preparations is more general and neutral. Verbal chat 13:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they should be split in two: "Homeopathic preparations" and "Substances used in homeopathy". Present system is unclear. Verbal chat 13:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to respond to what I said above? I don't believe you did last time. Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Medicine, treatments, remedies, tinctures and preparations are all common. Preparations has the benefit of no impled POV, which we should avoid per our core principles. You are also adding things that clearly are not remedies to teh category. That's just confusing. Verbal chat 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you still haven't responded in any way to the substance of my detailed findings on usage of the terms. As for placing certain articles in Category:Homeopathic remedies, I have done so only after scrutinizing the articles in question and determining that each included text which noted ingredients identifiable as "Homeopathic remedies". Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown that all terms are common, and we should use one that doesn't assert a POV. Preparation is used in scientific reviews, as is remedy when they quote the manufactures name. We should avoid POV and stick to a neutral label. The spliting of the category I have proposed would solve the other problem. Homeopathic products also gets a lot of hits, and would be acceptable per policy. Verbal chat 14:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me (again) - but what the G-hits show is that one term (Homeopathic remedies) is far more widely used than the other term (Homeopathic preparations). And clearly that is because "Homeopathic remedies" is, in fact, the standard term. I realize that rubs you the wrong way, but it is undeniably the case. Cgingold (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, it doesn't rub me at all. You've shown they're all common, and in neutral sources (though that's not very important) preparations or products is more used. As they are all common, and the standard homeopaths term of medicines is unacceptable, we should choose a neutral term per our core policies. Verbal chat 16:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Cgingold and per the previous CFD. "Homeopathic remedies" appears to me to be far, far more commonly used. Even in google scholar, "remedies" is used 5 times as often as "preparations". I support using the one that is more commonly used, even though I am sympathetic to the view that one is more POV than the other. I'd rather have some form of merge performed than having this closed as "no consensus" — it's silly to have two categories for the exact same thing. In that regard, I also note that Category:Homeopathic remedies is much older and when Category:Homeopathic preparations was created, there was no resulting consensus in the discussion to rename the category. Thus, the older one should prevail, even if the result here is "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you brought up this last point. The decision in the previous CFD was very clear cut, and it was merely an oversight that the newly-created duplicate category Homeopathic preparations was not deleted at that time. Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete the broader category then you'll have to start an appropriate discussion. Verbal chat 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People from Indonesia

Propose renaming Category:People from Bandung, West Java to Category:People from Bandung

Propose renaming Category:People from Blitar, East Java to Category:People from Blitar

Propose renaming Category:People from Bogor, West Java to Category:People from Bogor

Propose renaming Category:People from Madiun, East Java to Category:People from Madiun

Propose renaming Category:People from Makassar, South Sulawesi to Category:People from Makassar

Propose renaming Category:People from Medan, North Sumatra to Category:People from Medan

Propose renaming Category:People from Palembang, South Sumatra to Category:People from Palembang

Propose renaming Category:People from Pekalongan, Central Java to Category:People from Pekalongan

Propose renaming Category:People from Semarang, Central Java to Category:People from Semarang

Propose renaming Category:People from Surakarta, Central Java to Category:People from Surakarta

Nominator's rationale: No need to disambig these city categories in Indonesia. In all cases, the main articles are without the extra disambig. See also previous CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree Mayumashu (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains of Ulster County, New York

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 by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountains of Ulster County, New York - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is redundant with Category:Catskills. Gjs238 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There are glacial ridges along the Hudson that are probably notable even if we don't yet have articles on them, like Shaupeneak Ridge or Marlboro Mountain. They're not in the Catskills. Nor are any of the peaks along the Shawangunk Ridge in the Catskills, either (and how, pray tell, is the reader from outside New York or even outside the Hudson Valley supposed to know that Ulster County=Catskills (Not that, as I've said, it does). Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that not all Ulster County mountains may be in Catskills. However, for now the category is empty. Gjs238 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – please repopulate this category so the cfd can be properly considered (there were 3 articles, removed today by User:Gjs238). Category:Catskills contains articles on many topics other than mountains, so I would expect a keep or a rename (or a merge to Category:Catskill High Peaks, perhaps - and there is Category:Mountains of New York to be considered). Occuli (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the notable Catskill peaks are High Peaks. As for just leaving it all in Mountains of New York, that category has the potential to be huge, with hundreds of entries, so I have always thought subdividing it by county was a good idea. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am outside the Americas altogether and am not familiar with the area at all. My point is that an edit such as this takes the article out of the 2 parent categories of Category:Mountains of Ulster County, New York as well. It sounds as if 'keep and repopulate' is the way to go. Occuli (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract my nomination. I had originally considered the category to be in series/redundant with Category:Catskills. However, they are parallel cats. Gjs238 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2010 (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:National Monuments in New York

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 by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Monuments in New York - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is redundant with Category:National Park Service National Monuments in New York, itself a subcategory of Category:United States National Park Service areas in New York. Gjs238 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate; part of Category:National Monuments of the United States by state. Category:National Park Service National Monuments in New York and Category:United States National Park Service areas in New York are more specific subcats. (See eg Category:National Monuments in California, arranged as I would expect.) Occuli (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retract my nomination. I was not aware that there are national monuments under the auspices of offices other than the NPS. I had ASSumed all national monuments were under the auspices of the NPS. Gjs238 (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (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:People from Tiverton

Propose renaming Category:People from Tiverton to Category:People from Tiverton, Devon

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Tiverton, Devon and article Tiverton, Devon, and to avoid potential confusion with Category:People from Tiverton, Rhode Island, and the various other Tivertons elsewhere. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – to match corresponding article. Occuli (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to disambiguate properly Mayumashu (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Neftchala

Propose renaming Category:People from Neftchala to Category:People from Neftchala Rayon

Nominator's rationale: for disambiguation and wider application. Neftchala city is located within Neftchala Rayon and there is only one bio linked to this page. Moreover the parent category is Category:Neftchala Rayon Mayumashu (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – per persuasive nom. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Left For Dead members

Category:Left For Dead members - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Redlink band per Left for dead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it can be recreated if the band gets an article. Occuli (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dimension Zero albums

Propose renaming Category:Dimension Zero albums to Category:Dimension Zero (Swedish band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose disambiguating category name to match Dimension Zero (Swedish band). Dimension Zero (American band) exists on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – to match corresponding article. Occuli (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame

Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: as per deletion of other category pages for sub-national sport halls of fame Mayumashu (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Per consensus these should be listified, which this already is at Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. These have been extensively mooted; I'm not sure I have anything to add that hasn't recently been brought up at related CFDs and DRVs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Israel

Propose merging Category:Anti-Israel to Category:Anti-Zionism

Nominator's rationale: Merge: "Anti-Israel" is synonymous with "Anti-Zionism", so there is no justification for separate categories. GCarty (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This category originally was created when people were trying to rename various articles with this title and was a POV move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the difference is too subtle to warrant different categories, and i believe all the articles which can be categorized as anti-israel can be safely categorized as anti-zionism. there are people who are anti-zionist but recognize israel as a nation with a right to exist within international law, but thats not relevant to the articles listed here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planned invasions

Propose renaming Category:Planned invasions to ~~Category:Canceled invasions~~Category:Cancelled invasions

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These invasions never happened. We can either do this, or go one step further and upmerge them into the newly applied parent category Category:Canceled military operations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's misspelled, it should be "cancelled". 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the States, it isn't.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose WP:ENGVARious name, a dialect neutral name should be used. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. There's an entire category tree called Category:Cancelled projects and events, in which Category:Canceled military operations is the only one-L lama. Double-L, it is. Thanks for bringing this up.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future events

Propose renaming Category:Future events to Category:Upcoming events

Propose renaming Category:Future sporting events to Category:Upcoming sporting events

Propose renaming Category:Future spaceflights to Category:Upcoming spaceflights

Propose renaming Category:Future human spaceflights to Category:Upcoming human spaceflights

Propose renaming Category:Future manned Soyuz missions to Category:Upcoming manned Soyuz missions

Propose renaming Category:Future elections to Category:Upcoming elections

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Asia to Category:Upcoming elections in Asia

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Australia to Category:Upcoming elections in Australia

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Canada to Category:Upcoming elections in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Europe to Category:Upcoming elections in Europe

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in France to Category:Upcoming elections in France

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Germany to Category:Upcoming elections in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in Spain to Category:Upcoming elections in Spain

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in the United Kingdom to Category:Upcoming elections in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Future elections in the United States to Category:Upcoming elections in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Future election candidates to Category:Upcoming election candidates

Propose renaming Category:Future products to Category:Upcoming products

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In somewhat the same vein as this and other nominations, I'm suggesting removing the "Future" from the title. Most of the subcategories of Category:Future events use "Upcoming." This is not my favorite choice, since it still makes a WP:CRYSTAL claim of what will happen in the future, but these things do tend to happen. (There will be a next election in Spain, pending a unscheduled supernova.) So while I'd probably prefer "Proposed," this change will do. In the case of the latter category, almost all of its subcategories are also "Upcoming."--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the election ones, can we used scheduled? I know that for places like the UK, scheduled will not mean a specific date until a few months before. However as you said above, we know those will happen even if the date is uncertain right after the previous election. Upcoming also may not impart the fact that these may already be in progress. In the US, the 2012 attack ads have already started. Scheduled would also work for the space categories and should deal better with WP:CRYSTAL for all of this. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Scheduled" would make me very happy, since it doesn't predict the future. Are we okay with "Scheduled" for things like astronomical events, which will happen unless the universe explodes? If so, I'm behind all of the events becoming "Scheduled".--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional kiwi

Propose renaming Category:Fictional kiwi to Category:Fictional Apteryx (or Category:Fictional kiwi (bird), added at 03:52 15 June 2010 UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In this recent discussion, there was no consensus to rename Category:Apteryx to Category:Kiwi, so I propose renaming the subcategory of this category to match its parent, which is still Category:Apteryx. ("Apteryx" is a genus name so it is capitalized.) I still think it makes more sense to use "kiwi" in category names rather than "Apteryx", but these categories should at least be consistent since they are referring to exactly the same thing—one real, one fictional. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and if Category:Apteryx is nominated again for renaming, include this in such a nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The last nomination of Category:Apteryx could have gone to Category:Kiwi (bird) rather then a keep. The problem was the that there was opposition to just plain kiwi. Maybe this should be modified to rename Category:Fictional kiwi to Category:Fictional kiwi (bird) and add rename Category:Apteryx to Category:Kiwi (bird). I think this would have support except from the purists who want the category to always match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, OK. I can go with that. I support the suggested rename to Category:Fictional kiwi (bird) and have adjusted the nomination accordingly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are fictional characters not actual birds in the genus "Apteryx". Commons has the right idea with these sort of things (i.e. Commons:Category:Sus and Commons:Category:Pigs in art, not Commons:Category:Sus in art). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your comment. They are also not actual kiwi, so either option runs afoul (har har) of your criticism. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the principle really that hard to understand? They are representations of kiwi, of course but not members of the genus "Apteryx". "Apteryx" is a biological taxonomic form that is suitable for use with biological subjects but for use in other areas "Kiwi" is the better term.. We follow the same principle here at enwiki (although probably not for long once the CfD regulars get hold of the subject). See Category:Equus for the biological uses and Category:Horses for other uses. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not difficult to understand what you mean when you write what you mean. What you wrote immediately above is not the same as what you wrote before. In any case, they are also fictional representations of the genus Apteryx, so the distinction you are drawing is as artificial as any other that can be made. Just because you agree with a specific approach doesn't make it the only possible "correct" one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Apteryx haastii is a bird, Goodnight Kiwi is a cartoon character and thus not a bird nor a member of Genus Apteryx any more than me putting on a Big Bird costume makes me a bird. I am unsure how much clearer I can be. You don't have to agree with my rationale but to claim you don't understand my reasoning or that it is somehow "artificial" is perverse. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that it is not a bird of the Genus Apteryx, but it is a fictional bird of the Genus Apteryx as much as it is a fictional kiwi. I don't see any way around that except by constructing artificial (or if you prefer—"arbitrary") rules or barriers for how category names will be used. I don't understand how it's "perverse" to state that I don't understand a particular comment you made. If you want to be understood, just be more clear, as you were with your second comment. You seem to be conflating not understanding (my reaction to your first comment) with disagreeing with an approach (my reaction to your second comment). They are not the same thing, and trying to be clearer will always help with the first, but only occasionally with the second. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Fictional kiwi (birds), since "Kiwi" is ambiguous, and categories should not be ambiguous. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future things

Propose renaming Category:Future military equipment to Category:Proposed military equipment

Propose renaming Category:Future weapons to Category:Proposed weapons

Propose renaming Category:Future American weapons to Category:Proposed American weapons

Propose renaming Category:Future sports venues to Category:Proposed sports venues

Propose renaming Category:Future television channels and networks to Category:Proposed television channels and networks

Propose renaming Category:Future radio stations and programming to Category:Proposed radio stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggesting de-futurizing this along the lines of this recent series of nominations. In the latter category, these are all radio stations; there appears to be no programming here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm and Turkish beyliks

Propose renaming Category:Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm and Turkish beyliks to Category:Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term "Sultanate of Rum" is as pertinent in our day as the term Indian Territories is for the American Midwest. Furthermore, the name for the category has a faulty logic in ascribing the term "Seljuk" to both the sultanate and the principalities (Beyliks). Each had dynasties from different backgrounds, Beyliks were dependent on or independent from the Sultanate in varying degrees in each case and each evolving in time. What these had in common was that all, Seljuk Sultanate and Turkish Beyliks, were located in "Anatolia". There were other Seljuk sultanates and other Turkish Beyliks elsewhere. Cretanforever (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move on the two grounds: 1) "Sultanate of Rum" is by no means obsolete nomenclature. Turkish nationalists, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable with the term Rûm. Turkish historical pedagogy has followed the nationalists in this regard so that Turkish textbooks almost invariably now refer to the people as Anadolu Selçukları or "Anatolian Seljuks". On the other hand, English and other Western European scholarship refers to them as the Seljuks or Seljuqs of Rum. I have seen recently published bilingual books on the subject where the Turkish text reads Anadolu Selçukları and the English reads Seljuqs of Rum (ref. upon request). According to WP:UE, we need to use the commonly accepted English language name which in this case certainly includes the word Rûm. Added to this is the fact that the Seljuqs themselves were not ashamed to call the land they ruled Rûm.

2) In the name of this category, the adjective "Seljuk" clearly does not modify "Turkish Beyliks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramgar (talk • contribs)

Oppose, I see no viable reason for the change. When placed in quotations "Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate" gets 17 hits on google books[1], whereas "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" gets 737 hits[2]. So the theory of faulty logic is in itself a fallacy. In a side note, I've noticed an increase in removal(and change) of categories by nationalistic editors. Clearly this is an attempt to removed information found unpalatable and in most cases, to reflect the policies and agenda of a nationalistic Turkish POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filmed suicides in the September 11 attacks

Delete - This is a fine example of wildly excessive categorization. Somehow, I briefly thought perhaps there might be a film or two about some of the people who leaped to their deaths from the top floors of the World Trade Center. Not hardly. None of the articles are even about films that deal with the indicated subject. What's more, none of the articles actually show the individuals in question committing suicide, because they are, in fact, none other than the hijackers of the airliners -- all of whom are already covered by the parent Category:Participants in the September 11 attacks. Sheesh... have I missed anything? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Holy crap. No offence to the creator, but this is kind of inane. These are hardly "filmed suicides", since the individuals committing suicide cannot be seen on the film. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the contents of the category, this is far better covered in Category:Participants in the September 11 attacks and the title of this category under discussion would lead many to believe it was about victims of the crashes, not perpetrators. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, title is misleading if category contents are as described. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed infrastructure

Planned infrastructure

Propose renaming Category:Planned infrastructure to Category:Proposed infrastructure

Propose merging Category:Planned or proposed bridges to Category:Proposed bridges

Propose merging Category:Planned or proposed Buildings to Category:Proposed buildings and structures

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed canals to Category:Proposed canals

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed energy projects to Category:Proposed energy projects

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed indoor arenas to Category:Proposed indoor arenas

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed stadiums to Category:Proposed stadiums

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed stadiums in the United States to Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Planned or proposed tunnels to Category:Proposed tunnels

Propose renaming Category:Planned coal-fired power stations in the United States to Category:Proposed coal-fired power stations in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Planned museums to Category:Proposed museums

Propose renaming Category:Planned museums in Canada to Category:Proposed museums in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Planned museums in the United States to Category:Proposed museums in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Planned skyscrapers in Israel to Category:Proposed skyscrapers in Israel

Propose renaming Category:Nuclear power stations with planned reactors to Category:Nuclear power stations with proposed reactors

Planned airlines

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines to Category:Proposed airlines

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Australia to Category:Proposed airlines of Australia

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Gabon to Category:Proposed airlines of Gabon

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Germany to Category:Proposed airlines of Germany

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Greece to Category:Proposed airlines of Greece

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Guyana to Category:Proposed airlines of Guyana

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Haiti to Category:Proposed airlines of Haiti

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of India to Category:Proposed airlines of India

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Iraq to Category:Proposed airlines of Iraq

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Italy to Category:Proposed airlines of Italy

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Macau to Category:Proposed airlines of Macau

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Russia to Category:Proposed airlines of Russia

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Serbia to Category:Proposed airlines of Serbia

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of South Korea to Category:Proposed airlines of South Korea

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Sri Lanka to Category:Proposed airlines of Sri Lanka

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Syria to Category:Proposed airlines of Syria

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Thailand to Category:Proposed airlines of Thailand

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Czech Republic to Category:Proposed airlines of the Czech Republic

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Category:Proposed airlines of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Dominican Republic to Category:Proposed airlines of the Dominican Republic

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the People's Republic of China to Category:Proposed airlines of the People's Republic of China

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the Philippines to Category:Proposed airlines of the Philippines

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the United Arab Emirates to Category:Proposed airlines of the United Arab Emirates

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the United Kingdom to Category:Proposed airlines of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of the United States to Category:Proposed airlines of the United States

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Tunisia to Category:Proposed airlines of Tunisia

Propose renaming Category:Planned airlines of Vietnam to Category:Proposed airlines of Vietnam

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Now that we've decided to use "Proposed" for all unfinished infrastructure categories, here are a few that need to be standardized, including the recently renamed parent category. I left out all "Planned cities," "Planned developments," and "Planned communities" variants until I can determine which of them mean "Not yet built" and which mean "New town".--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]