Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 30



Category:Lords Provost

 * 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 rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Lords Provost to Category:Lord Provosts
 * added 3 October 2012 by BHG
 * Category:Lords Provost of Edinburgh to Category:Lord Provosts of Edinburgh
 * Category:Lords Provost of Glasgow to Category:Lord Provosts of Glasgow
 * Category:Lords Provost of Aberdeen to Category:Lord Provosts of Aberdeen
 * Category:Lords Provost of Dundee to Category:Lord Provosts of Dundee
 * Nominator's rationale: Provost is the noun, lord is the adjective. Also cf. the article titles in Category:Lists of provosts of places in Scotland all of which have the correct plural. Opera hat (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * rename per nom. The official government sites all use "Lord Provosts". Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This likely qualifies for speedy renaming per criterion C2A. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to nominate Category:Lords Provost of Edinburgh, Category:Lords Provost of Glasgow, Category:Lords Provost of Aberdeen and Category:Lords Provost of Dundee for a similar move but was having trouble working out from the guidance how to nominate them all using a single template. Can someone help me out? Opera hat (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just added them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nominator and per Mangoe. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Paul Kelly (musician)

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting paul kelly (musician)


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. Some of these are works he's scored, so I'm not sure if they should be included. Either way, a footer should comfortably navigate these. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like some clarification please:
 * How much content is enough? Does this content count include sub-categories?
 * Eponymous are discouraged? See Categorization. There are guidelines supplied and I don't draw the conclusion that these categories are discouraged. Since you're using this as a justification for lots of nominations for proposed deletions shouldn't there be a consensus on this issue and a note in the above link to this effect?
 * If he's scored these works why aren't they suitable for inclusion in this category? Perhaps another sub-category is needed: Works scored by Paul Kelly (musician)?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pursuant to my comment above I've had a look at other categories named for musicians/bands and find many with fewer articles inhabiting them. As for eponymous categories: they exist, certainly guidelines ought to be followed but I see no support for the claim that they are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are more than suffienct articles to warrant this category. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose although I think the category should be cleaned up. In particular, I don't think the films should be in there (see for instance Category:Ennio Morricone and see the absence of Category:Category:John Williams). But still, I count at least five articles that definitely belong there and at least two categories (I think Category:Professor Ratbaggy albums should be created). That's enough for an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Operation Ivy (band)

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting operation ivy (band)


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category.  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Beat Happening

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting beat happening


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category.  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Models (band)

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting models (band)


 * Nominator's rationale: Too few articles, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe it has sufficient content and dispute contention that eponymous categories are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category.  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is enough articles for this to be covered in its own category. Dan arndt (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Images of Kara

 * 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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal unless it is set out clearly. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting images of kara


 * Nominator's rationale: All images are up at WP:FFD, upmerge subcat to the parent. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment if you upmerge, or if you keep, this category needs to have the NOGALLERY flag activated. -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Do-Re-Mi (band)

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting do-re-mi (band)


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe it has sufficient content and dispute contention that eponymous categories are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category.  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose sufficent articles for the category to be retained. Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Goldfinger (band)

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting goldfinger (band)


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category.  Lugnuts  And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Former Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects

 * 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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal which contradicts itself. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting former arjen anthony lucassen bands or projects


 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent's parent--no need to subcategorize at all, let alone by time period. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to what, exactly? Note also that you selected 'delete', not 'merge', when nominating... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete we avoid former cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects

 * 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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal which contradicts itself. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting arjen anthony lucassen bands or projects


 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge...to where? Note that your proposed action does not match your selection for action, as the header says "propose deleting". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Response There's only one parent: Category:Arjen Anthony Lucassen. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Rangers F.C. articles

 * 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.  W a g g e r s ' TALK  10:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Rangers F.C. articles to Category:Rangers F.C.
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason i created a new category is there is some articles that relate to rangers like Old firm Glasgow green but there not a direct rangers article like rangers f.c. i have not had time to add the new category to other pages, ive got nothing against the merge but i think it might be better in the reverse order as this category covers far more whereas the rangers one only covers rangers articles by name as far as i am aware Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (there's nothing to merge) If an article is related to Rangers F.C. it belongs in Category:Rangers F.C.. If the link is too tenuous, it doesn't belong in Category:Rangers F.C. articles either. Pichpich (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * in that case renaming it to sometihng that covers other things would be more appiorate Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Pichpich. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Water transport

 * 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) 19:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Water transport to Category:Nautical transport
 * And a long list of subcategories (see Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 30/Water transport)
 * Rationalle: Current name is ambiguous, as is clear both from the text of Category:Water transport itself (otherwise, why would it need to say "This category does not include articles on the tranport of water for the purpose of consuming the water"?), as well as a comment from an anon at this recent discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Maritime transport format. "Nautical transport" is somewhat WP:JARGONy, and also misleading, as most would not associate inland waterways and such as "nautical". "Maritime transport", on the other hand, appears to be the standard name for this sort of thing, and is already somewhat used - see Category:Maritime transport authorities, and such. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * problem According to WP, maritime (as well as marine) only applies to seas or oceans. While this category is said to include "process of moving people, goods, etc. by barge, boat, ship or sailboat over a sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc." which is more extensive.  I believe we have concluded there is no Englsh word that includes "sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc"  Hmains (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the current name is clearly ambiguous, the proposed name has other issues.  Even the option proposed by The Bushranger appears to have problems.  So we need to come up with a better name.  The question is what is the solution?  Category:Transportation on water (Yea, US v UK issue but Category:Transport on water reads badly in some versions of English) and Category:Transportation of water? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:watNautical transport "nautical" is fairly common, and would cover things that travel in water as well as on water, and in the ground-effect above the water (IMO recognized Ekranoplanes) -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Water transport is more generic with a purpose: it includes river and lake transport, whereas using the term nautical or maritime might seem to preclude that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * rename to Ship transport to reflect current name of main article. This would also get rid of issues with "nautical", "maritime", "marine", etc. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would exclude boats and barges though. --101.108.227.92 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as meantioned by Hmains is no Englsh word that includes "sea, ocean, lake, canal, river, etc" expect one WATER so teh caterogy name is fine but i dnt disagree it is ambiogious, unless a new english word to cover the terms used then it would have to remain water. Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If i am readin git (edit i mistype it and put git, i never inteneded to insult anyone this was honest mistake) right the caterogy is about transport on water, in that case another alternative could be Water Transportation. Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Water transportation also means the transportation of water. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it means other things to but is a little ambgious in my mind than the current one but i dnt think neutrical transport works Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep "Nautical transport" is a neologism that appears to be utterly unused in any industry, government, or financial usage. Rather, "water transport" or "water transportation" is the umbrella term for moving freight or passenger over water, like air transport[ation] or "ground transport[ation]. This is the best available term for reasons already covered: "marine" or "maritime" is that subset of water transportation on the oceans, excluding inland water services; shipping is vague (and much water transport is done via barge and not ship); and frankly I don't believe a reasonably well-read person will think this to be about the transportation of water any more than rail transport is about the transport of rails or ground transportation about topsoil.- choster (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * nautical seems appropriate. And how is it a neoogism? There's thousands of uses 206k -- 76.65.131.79 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I defy you to find any trade association, industry publication, government regulator, investment guide, news agency, or other authoritative source using "nautical transport" as the preferred name for this industry. The existence of the words "nautical" and "transport" does not mean that WP can wrap a rubber band around them and declare it a term of art.- choster (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Nautical transport. Neologism? Far from it. Simple - gets the job done and respects the distinction between marine and Nautical per Bushranger. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * keep as is or rename to ship transport yuck. What is so wrong with Category:Water transport again?  Maybe not much. No so much as to get into these other odd and contrived names.  Category:Ship transport might work though.  Hmains (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . All the alternatives either narrow the scope or are neologisms. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * )changing my !vote) Rename to Category:Water-based transport per IP below. This removes the ambiguity without narrowing the scope, and avoids neologisms. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Renaming to Category:Water-based transport would help avoid ambiguity without relying on the problematic terms mentioned. --101.108.239.72 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can find a problem with this suggestion, I'm willing to Support this alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Nautical transport" is made-up; a quick google shows a few companies with that in their trade names, and the ads that it served up all had to do with moving boats, not boats moving stuff. Moving water around is usually part of "water distribution", because it usually is being moved to be distributed and consumed elsewhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose -- This is not just about sea transport; it is also about transport on rivers and canals. It is cognate with road transport and rail transport.  "Transport on water" might be a possibility, but would exclude the use of submarines for carriage, which has happened though rarely.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that submarines transport sailors, so is a form of transport through water... -- 70.24.247.121 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Water-based transport does not seem to suffer from this problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose water transport works just fine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Fairy tale adaptations

 * 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 all per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Adaptations of fairy tales to Category:Works based on fairy tales
 * Propose renaming Category:Beauty and the Beast adaptations to Category:Works based on Beauty and the Beast
 * Propose renaming Category:Beauty and the Beast film adaptations to Category:Films based on Beauty and the Beast
 * Propose renaming Category:Cinderella adaptations to Category:Works based on Cinderella
 * Propose renaming Category:Cinderella film adaptations to Category:Films based on Cinderella
 * Propose renaming Category:Goldilocks adaptations to Category:Works based on The Story of the Three Bears
 * Propose renaming Category:Goldilocks film adaptations to Category:Films based on The Story of the Three Bears
 * Propose renaming Category:Hansel and Gretel adaptations to Category:Works based on Hansel and Gretel
 * Propose renaming Category:Hansel and Gretel film adaptations to Category:Films based on Hansel and Gretel
 * Propose renaming Category:Jack and the Beanstalk adaptations to Category:Works based on Jack and the Beanstalk
 * Propose renaming Category:Jack and the Beanstalk film adaptations to Category:Films based on Jack and the Beanstalk
 * Propose renaming Category:Little Red Riding Hood adaptations to Category:Works based on Little Red Riding Hood
 * Propose renaming Category:Little Red Riding Hood film adaptations to Category:Films based on Little Red Riding Hood
 * Propose renaming Category:Puss in Boots adaptations to Category:Works based on Puss in Boots
 * Propose renaming Category:Puss in Boots film adaptations to Category:Films based on Puss in Boots
 * Propose renaming Category:Sleeping Beauty adaptations to Category:Works based on Sleeping Beauty
 * Propose renaming Category:Sleeping Beauty film adaptations to Category:Films based on Sleeping Beauty
 * Propose renaming Category:Snow White adaptations to Category:Works based on Snow White
 * Propose renaming Category:Snow White film adaptations to Category:Films based on Snow White
 * Propose renaming Category:The Little Mermaid adaptations to Category:Works based on The Little Mermaid
 * Propose renaming Category:The Little Mermaid film adaptations to Category:Films based on The Little Mermaid
 * Propose renaming Category:Thumbelina adaptations to Category:Works based on Thumbelina
 * Propose renaming Category:Thumbelina film adaptations to Category:Films based on Thumbelina
 * Propose renaming Category:Tom Thumb adaptations to Category:Works based on Tom Thumb
 * Propose renaming Category:Tom Thumb film adaptations to Category:Films based on Tom Thumb


 * Nominator's rationale: Per the parent Category:Works based on folklore and all other "Works based on" categories. I used the article title for each fairy tale; Goldilocks redirects to The Story of the Three Bears. (See also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_23.)-- Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename, and commend the nominator. My initial thoughts were against renaming from Goldilocks, but on investigation it's the right thing to do. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Commendation accepted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.