Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13[edit]

Category:Dynamo Berlin players[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. Kbdank71 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dynamo Berlin players to Category:Berliner FC Dynamo players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More official name, and disambiguates from the other sporting departments. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SC Dynamo Berlin is the top level article. I've rearranged the category to make this article the focus. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2008 (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:Complete lists[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. Per WP:SAL, to denote a complete list use "This is a complete list of Xs." in the lead. Use of this category, way down at the bottom of an article, doesn't give the reader or editor any idea of what it means, and they shouldn't need to go to that category to figure it out. Kbdank71 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Complete lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nom. The template populating this category was deleted at TfD (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 5#Template:Complete-list); nevertheless, there is still one article using this category. PC78 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category is much less obtrusive than the deleted template, and still useful; we are in the process of adding it to additional articles where appropriate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is almost an oxymoron. What happens when something that should be in a list is created as an article and not added to the list? Is the list still complete? So the contents here are really only complete when the category is added and maybe not even then. How would anyone go about managing this to make sure that the lists included are still complete? This is just an unneeded nightmare. And then there is the question raised in the TFD about WP:NDA issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misinterpret the usage of this cat. It is not for placement on "lists of all X with WP articles;" it is for placement on "lists of all x that could ever exist." Look at List of works by William Butler Yeats: he died in 1939, and so he won't be writing any more works, and the list has all of them, not just the ones with WP articles, and so will always be complete. The same is true of List of passengers on board RMS Titanic: the members of that list are never going to change. The cat is appropriate to distiguish these lists from the "lists of all X with WP articles", which of course do change and are not appropriate to have this tag.
Separately, I still do not see how this is in any way a disclaimer. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the category is misnamed since the usage is not obvious from the name. Category:Complete lists may well be ambiguous based your clarification. Maybe you need to rename to Category:Lists that are never going to change? That implies that no one will ever discover an unpublished manuscript by William Butler Yeats for your example. In the end, is this a defining characteristic for these articles? Why is it important? Does this need to be part of the encyclopedia? Is this a maintenance category? Should it simply be hidden? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against a rename, although I think the one you propose implies that no edits whatsoever can be made to the list article, which is not the case: it would be ok to add references or WLs, improve formatting, etc., just not add or remove any members. I also think rather than a very awkward name like Category:Lists, the members of which are not expected to change it makes sense to clarify the usage of the cat in the intro section on the cat page, which is exactly what we do on many, many other cats. The reason for this category is to signal to good intentioned (though misguided) editors that they should not go in and delete all the redlinks or non-links from these lists, which is what an overly literal reading of WP:SAL would imply should be done. I don't think a hidden cat. accomplishes this. As to maintenance cats., I though they were for articles that would benefit from editing; this seems to be the opposite: these lists benefit from non-editing. A "non-maintenance category", perhaps? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2008 (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:Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000)[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Due to recent mergers and deletions, this category is now sparsely populated and is not likely to increase. It is now too narrow to be useful. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concurred - With the removal of individual chapter articles, we should remove this category as well. There is a very high risk of re-creation, however, given the general Internet presence of Warhammer 40,000. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone salt it then, to make sure no one does it without a good rationale? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (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:Valencia (autonomous community)[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. Kbdank71 14:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Valencia (autonomous community) to Category:Valencian Community
Nominator's rationale: The article's name is Valencian Community which is correct, see also Category:Community of Madrid for reference. Gryffindor 14:03, 13 August 2008 (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:Red Bull Salzburg players[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 to Category:FC Red Bull Salzburg players. Kbdank71 14:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Red Bull Salzburg players to Category:Red Bull Salzburg footballers
Nominator's rationale: to differentiate from EC Red Bull Salzburg players Mayumashu (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2008 (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.

Bilateral relations[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 all, leaving category redirects at the old name and the short-dash versions. Kbdank71 15:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bilateral relations to Category:Several renames listed below
Nominator's rationale: These categories have wildly divergent naming schemes, and I propose consistent naming using the following principles:
  1. Use of the longdash (–) rather than short (-) per WP:MOS.
  2. Alphabetical order for names of states for neutrality and consistency.
  3. Use of noun forms rather than adjectivals. I propose that this is preferable because of instances where there are two states with the same adjectival form (eg. "Dominican" and "Congolese"), one state with two adjectival forms (e.g. "British" and "Anglo-" for the United Kingdom, itself a bit dodgy since the latter implies English rather than British), and instances where both are the case (e.g. "Chinese" and "Sino-" for the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.)

While this seems like a long list, I think it's actually only about half of the bilateral relations categories, since almost all of the Russian ones are in this form already. Also, many of the articles are as well, but not all of them by any means. Lastly, some of these are not about states per se, but civilizations or regions (e.g. China, Ireland, Korea.)

NOTE: I am tagging these after I make this proposal; this will take a few minutes, so be patient, please. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If someone has the desire, he may want to help sorting these categories as well. (for instance) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use of something other than a hypen (ascii minus sign) would hurt usuability and require category redirects and bot maintenance. If no {{categoryredirect}} is used, then these categories will surely be recreated. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per persuasive nom. WP:DASH gives specific support to the use of 'en-dash' in article names (with redirects for the hyphenated form) and so the category should follow suit (also with redirects). Occuli (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. As Occuli points out, this follows the convention set out in WP:DASH. Using the name of the country rather than various adjectives really is superior here for the reasons nom articulates. Using an alphabetical system for deciding which to place first is an elegant solution. (On Category:Sino-Pakistani relations I've changed the proposal from Category:India–Pakistan relations to Category:China–Pakistan relations; I assumed it was just a typo.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some of these, but not all. I think the dash thing is fine, I can't argue with that part. So in essence I support renaming all of them just because of that part. However, I don't think points 2 and 3 apply in all cases. For instance, "Anglo-American" is a term which is in common usage, and so that particular one shouldn't need to follow points 2 and 3. Most of these listed should follow points 2 and 3, but not all of them, since to lump them all together and force them to have a tightly regimented structure would violate the naming conventions since "Anglo-American" is more common and doesn't carry any POV. So most of these I support, but not ones like "Anglo-American". Deamon138 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeesh. Wouldn't it just be easier to have one standard naming convention for all of them? Otherwise there will be mass confusion about which are exceptions to the rule and which are not. I didn't totally follow your comment, and even after reading it a number of times I'm not totally clear on what your proposed exceptions would include. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, one standard naming convention would be better I agree. And if that is a proposed policy/guideline/convention/whatever, I will fully support that, but at the moment, the policy is to go with the most common name, and a few of these things such as "Anglo-American" have entered the vernacular. Sorry if my last comment was confusing, I had trouble phrasing it tbh. Anyway, if someone proposes changing the actual WP policy, thus adding these types of categories to the exceptions when the most comon name doesn't apply, then I will get behind that. But with current policy, I feel that we should keep ones such as Anglo-American, Franco-American, Franco-German, Indo-Pakistani, and most of the Sino- ones, are the ones that stand out for me maybe. I mean I'm no expert on these names, but those seem common to me. That's not many I know, but I don't think there are many to question (other editors might question others as well, but those are the ones mainly for me). I mean "New Zealand-United States" seems very unlikely to have a name with some adjective like Sino-. So what I'm saying doesn't apply to a lot of these. However, if it is the will of the community to rename all of these, then that's fine, but in that event, I think an actual change to current conventions should be orchestrated so that in future it is written down in stone that a category about relations between two countries follows the same structure. So basically, I support most of these name changes as of now, but not all, since it isn't part of Wikipedia conventions, but if this goes through, then it should become part of the conventions. Is that clearer? Deamon138 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, thanks, that's much clearer. We're not strictly speaking talking about adopting a "policy" or "convention" here, but if all these categories were standardised, as the nomination proposed, I suppose you could say there would be a "de facto" convention for naming categories like this. Whether or not that's a good idea is something you've highlighted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I suggest then, that if these names are standardized (as seems likely looking at the other comments here), that a new convention is proposed using these three points as the basis of it. With the ever changing face of world politics, it is very likely that a combination of two countries will interact that we haven't got a category for, and it would be nice if we had a naming convention that showed that this new category should follow these three points. I therefore say that we create a proposed new naming convention based on these three points, and introduce it into the Wider Wiki World. I mean, if the consensus here is to change these names, and since a few of these name changes seem to violate current conventions (the ones I outlined above I reckon), then this would seem to me to be an example of consensus can change i.e. that current conventions need not be conventions in the future if consensus desires. This to me seems that a proposal to make this a new convention would then be the logical next step, and the rest of the community can judge that. So, assuming this goes through, should we draw up a new convention and put it to the community? Deamon138 (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Using the name of each country rather than a pair of denonymic adjectives would make the scope of each category much clearer (is the average reader going to know what "Sino-" means? Doubtful...) I could really care less about the dashes as long as category redirects are used for the hyphenated equivalent of each new title (average reader won't notice the difference). — CharlotteWebb 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I forgot to mention this before: I think something else to bear in mind is that expatriate ethnic groups can be called "Greek-American" (for instance), so it is slightly ambiguous what "Greek-American relations" means. (Does it refer to the relations of the community of Greeks living in the United States?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. The naming of these categories and their asscociated articles is currently all over the place. We need consitancy and clarity, and this proposal provides both. PC78 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support all per nom. As the initial creator of most articles in Category:Bilateral relations of Russia and creating categorisation of those articles, I ensured there was no ambiguity in that category...one of the main factors for choosing that structure is so called Sino–Russian relations - this can refer to PRC–Russian relations, ROC–Russian relations and Imperial China–Imperial Russian relations. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose the renaming of the "Sino-" to "Chinese-" relations. Every political science or historical work I've seen has always used the "Sino-" prefix instead of "Chinese". Kuralyov (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal is not to change "Sino" to "Chinese". It's to get rid of the adjectives altogether and to use "China" instead to bring consistency across all categories, whether involving China or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose changing the hyphen to a long dash. The latter character is not present on many keyboards and is likely to result in numerous errors (and duplicate categories being created in error). This is not the same situation as article names where redirects handle the problem. Oppose the all nature of this CFD. A lot of the individual categories have the main article either at the current category name (e.g. Anglo-American relations) or at another name altogether (e.g. Anglo-French relations, Anglo-German relations), though for some this isn't affected (e.g. New Zealand–United States relations). The naming should be sorted out at the article level first. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The en dash issue is really covered by the WP:MOS at WP:DASH. Is there any indications from the past that these guidelines don't apply to categories? If not, I don't think the difficulty some people have in figuring out how to make an en dash is a good reason to not implement the guideline. (It can be made with every keyboard, one just has to figure out the right combination to do it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing there saying they do and there really should be given the different situation before the MOS is trumpeted as the answer here. Past CFDs have been against incorporating awkward characters into category names precisely because of this. Yes one can type a combination of several symbols but it's a very error risky strategy and the hyphened categories are likely to be recreated. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's really not that big of a deal or risk—as pointed out above, we just need to keep redirects for the category names with hyphens, and if any is "re-created" (in case there is no redirect) it would be eligible for a speedy rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2008 (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:Myanmar–Russia relations[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. Kbdank71 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Myanmar–Russia relations to Category:Burma–Russia relations
Nominator's rationale: Per main. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per before. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it's too late to merge this discussion into the larger one. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is not per the above nom, as it already seems to be in the form suggested. Instead it is a rename of Myanmar to Burma. (The article is at Burma, but surely the country is now Myanmar?) Occuli (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. WP categories almost universally use "Burma", and main article is Burma. Myanmar redirects to Burma. Relevant parent categories are Category:Foreign relations of Burma and Category:Bilateral relations of Burma. The en-dash is correctly used here, see WP:DASH. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Good O. Occuli (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is at Burma because ther has been no consensus for Myanmar or Burma, either way. If the article had been at Myanmar instead, there would be no consensus to have moved it to Burma either. It makes sense that all the articles, lists and categories all use the same name, but until there is consensus for a particular name, wouldn't it make sense to keep everything where it is? Deamon138 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. There was consensus to move Category:Myanmar to Category:Burma in a 2007 OCT 6 CfD, and to my knowledge there's never been a nomination even to have it moved back. (Then there was a swath of Myanmar categories that were renamed to Burma in a 2007 DEC 17 CfD which violated process, but the deletion review endorsed the rename and encouraged a settling of the name one way or the other, which has never happened.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's my point though. A settling hasn't happened since then. Regardless of whether most of the Burma/Myanmar related are at Burma, there isn't consensus anywhere currently to keep them at Burma, nor is there consensus to rename them to Myanmar. It seems silly to rename this category when this dispute isn't resolved one way or the other. Deamon138 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question As long as every other article, category, and template is at "Burma" (minus "Myanmar at the Olympics"), why should this one remain where it is named? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Justin on this. There was a consensus to change Category:Myanmar to Category:Burma, so until some sort of consensus develops to turn away from Burma, we should use Burma for all the names. It's not true that there is no consensus — there has been a consensus to use Burma instead of Myanmar for categories; the hiccup in it all is just that it has been made subject in a "without prejudice" way to a future decision to use Myanmar, should that occur by the article changing to Myanmar. But it hasn't happened yet. Categories should follow the lead of article-naming, where the real action on names takes place (no offence to all of us here). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • By "Categories should follow the lead of article-naming", do you mean that categories should take the name of what the main article is called, or do you mean that the names of the categories should have a separate consensus if there isn't one at the article thus "taking the lead" so to speak? Btw to Justin above, there is more than one article (in fact lots more) at Myanmar rather than Burma. See here. Yes some are redirects, but I clicked on quite a lot at random and there was a fair few at Myanmar (and those are just the ones beginning with Myanmar). Deamon138 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I mean was that in general, it's my position that when there are two acceptable and equivalent terms that could be used in a category name, the category should choose to adopt the name used in the main article, for reasons of consistency. This is subject to and can be deviated from by CfD consensus, of course, but here the only consensus that has been generated was to change Category:Myanmar to Category:Burma, so there's no contradiction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I pretty much agree with you that it would be best if categories are at the same name as the article, but I think this is only fair when the article itself has consensus to be where it is, and as I said, there is none in either direction, which is why I personally think this should stay put. I was told that a few months before I joined Wikipedia (I've only been here a few months), the article itself was originally at Myanmar, then was moved without consensus, and then protected or something. I don't know, myself, I wasn't there, and I'm no private investigator to go check it out. But if true, the article is only at Burma by chance you could say. (I notice also that in the original CfD, the nominator's rational was based on the contentious discussion at Talk:Burma). Anyway, you say that "when there are two acceptable and equivalent terms" but do you regard each term as equally acceptable? I don't know your opinion on the article naming debacle, but one of them has to be wrong. Or maybe you mean they are equally acceptable in that since there is no consensus article wise for either, then that makes them equal? Whatever you mean, I oppose the rename as you know, but personally, whichever name it gets is trivial to me, I'd much rather see consensus over at Burma once and for all to end all these discussions, but that looks unlikely! Deamon138 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Daemon138 Almost all of those are proper nouns, and the others are - as I mentioned - international sporting forums in which Burma competes as "Myanmar." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the old name Burma is commonly used elsewhere, the correct name of the country is Myanmar. Accordingly that ought to be the article name and the categories should be based on it, with Burma-versions redirecting to it. None of is regularly refer to Upper Volta rather then Burkino Faso or to Rhodesia rather than Zimbabwe: we should conform to the common English-language names for countries not obsolete ones. Nevertheless, I am as guilty as many people of still referring to Burma. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that it's as obsolete as "Upper Volta" or "Rhodesia". The issue goes back to the fact that the junta that controls the country has never gone through the regular parliamentary procedure to change the country's name. According to the law of B/M, the country is still known as "Burma". So in this case, I would definitely say there is not one wrong answer and one right answer — both can be correct, depending on the perspective you take. "Myanmar" is the one used de facto by the leaders of the country, and they've asked to be "Myanmar" in the UN and in international organisations and competetions; but "Burma" is still the de jure correct name. This is not true for Upper Volta or Rhodesia. But in the end, I agree with Justin's comment below that this discussion cannot and should not be trying to determine which is correct; since the main article is Burma and the main category is Category:Burma, it's difficult to argue that this category should use "Myanmar". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although this isn't really relevant to this naming situation, as far as I understand it, the junta did change the country's name to Myanmar officially, but because they aren't democratically elected (being a totalitarian regime), the authority of the junta itself is questioned, and hence the new name isn't accepted by some countries (e.g. the US). But with regards to Wikipedia, if there is no common name (which there isn't here, Burma and Myanmar are approximately in equal common usage), then the naming conventions say that the name should be the self-identifying one, regardless of whether the country is democratically elected or not (for this would be a POV in favour of democracy otherwise). That is the general reasoning behind renaming the article to Myanmar. But of course, this isn't relevant to the category right now, so I'll shut up now! Deamon138 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure they used the regular parliamentary procedure to change the name? My understanding was that they just did it by fiat, which under a strict reading of Burmese law and the constitution is not the legal way to change the name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think so. I'm no expert of course, so pinch of salt and all that. Surely a totalitarian government like that would've changed the rules anyway? If you have any sources (reliable or unreliable I don't care) for this I would be interested to have a read thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a forum for (re)naming Burma or Category:Burma, but considering that the main article and category are at those names, I am proposing to rename this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, per main cat Category:Burma. 'Burma' is a name frequently used in contemporary diplomacy. --Soman (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (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:Fictional characters with facial disfigurements[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 per subjective/trivial argument (and on a personal-opinion side note, is a "facial disfigurement" really a "disability"? Just wondering) . Kbdank71 13:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters with facial disfigurements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This tag was actually added by one Gerald G-Money, but the fellow neglected to either start a discussion or add his reasons. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I'm suggesting that a fictional character's facial disfigurement is a trivial characteristic. The category is also subjective, as there is no objective definition of what constitutes "disfigurement." What degree of disfigurement is required to meet the category? Would a character like Man-Thing whose entire body has been transformed into rotting vegetation, count as having a disfigured face? Otto4711 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2008 (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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode IX[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: upmerge per nom. Kbdank71 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: Some plant categories created by User:Polbot which should be deleted/upmerged. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Eliyak T·C 14:14, 14 August 2008 (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/2008_August_13&oldid=1080626227"