Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2[edit]

Category:Fictional Technobabble speakers[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. Consensus here agrees that this category is not a defining characteristic and leads to original research. — ξxplicit 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Technobabble speakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hardly a defining trait for anyone (fictional or otherwise). Wholly subjective inclusion criteria. --EEMIV (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category Creator's Rationale: Hardly a defining trait for anyone? I respectfully disagree with this sentiment and nomination, for not too many people/characters (both fictional or otherwise) use technobabble. Human beings don't even hear and use technobabble on a daily basis! With that said, I find it to be worthy of at least a category list, or an article somewhere on wikipedia.(LonerXL (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Given the definition - from the article - is "Technobabble is a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation", I'd say that if you think human beings don't even hear and use technobabble on a daily basis you haven't spent much time at WP:AFD! More seriously, there are a huge number of people who use some form of technobabble in their daily work, and the same is true in fiction (everyone from Sir Humphrey Appleby to Doctor Who has used technobabble). At best, this could be listified, though I doubt it would survive long before someone AfD nominated it as original research (perhaps "noted uses and users of technobabble in fiction" with citations as a section on technobabble, would be more appropriate, with a parallel list of real users/examples). As a category, though, I would hardly call it defining. Grutness...wha? 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Grutness. Technobabble includes not only "prose intentionally made obscure through gratuitous technical terms and technical slang", but also "technical description that necessarily contains many technical terms" and that is not understandable to someone. Thus, whether someone is a technobabbler depends largely on the perspective of the person on the receiving end of the 'babble'. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow ehm... Delete. I agree- an article of this sort would face AfD under WP:NOR in very short order. Almost sci-fi character has used technobabble at some point or another- not only engineers and scientists like B'Elanna Torres and Rodney McKay but also characters not normally considered technical characters. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as unoriginal research and due to objective inclusion criteria. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you (attempt to) articulate a description of what those "objective inclusion criteria" are? --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golly. Zing. Well, gee, Dr. Nobody, how about you take a stab at it? (Nice to see your familiar rhetoric clogging up CfD now, too.) --EEMIV (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to discuss in a WP:CIVIL manner and avoid describing editor's work as "lazy" or using WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-academic remarks in edit summaries, I will gladly reply to you. I am only willing to have serious and mature engagements with people here. In any event, the criteria here is quite clear: only fictional characters and only fictional characters who use technobabble. The examples that appear in the category such as Donatello from the Ninja Turtle are precisely the ones I would expect to see in such a category. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you determine whether the speech of a fictional character counts as "technobabble"? Thank you, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I do not believe that either way would work as intended for the reason that the phrase "technobabble" lacks a clear, unambiguous definition. If we rely on reliable sources (which I think is necessary if the category is kept), then we are left with the choice of categorising articles only when a source specifically uses the word "technobabble" in relation to a character's speech or of categorising articles based on our personal understanding of the term "technobable". In the former case, we would be categorising whether at least one source has identified a fictional character as being a technobabbler, which is hardly a defining characteristic; in the latter case, we would be forced to undertake original interpretation of whether a particular source's description of the speech of a character is equivalent to our chosen definition of "technobabble". –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, for the reasons discussed above. Too dependent on original research, and not really defining. The way the category is phrased makes it sound like Technobabble is a complete language, which it is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2009 (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.

Locomotives[edit]

Category:Pere Marquette locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Pere Marquette locomotives to Category:Pere Marquette Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match name of the railway and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2009 (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:Oldenburg locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Oldenburg locomotives to Category:Grand Duchy of Oldenburg State Railways locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the railway and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2009 (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:Nord locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nord locomotives to Category:Chemin de Fer du Nord locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the railway and the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (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:Mecklenburg locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mecklenburg locomotives to Category:Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg Friedrich-Franz Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match name of the company and the lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2009 (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:Etat locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Etat locomotives to Category:Chemins de Fer de l'État locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the company, the main article and the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (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:Baden locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Baden locomotives to Category:Grand Duchy of Baden State Railway locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the railway and the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (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:Alsace-Lorraine locomotives[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Alsace-Lorraine locomotives to Category:Imperial Railways in Alsace-Lorraine locomotives
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Alsace-Lorraine is the name of an area and not the name of a railway company. Not sure if this is the correct name, but after reading the main article I think it is the best option. This is to cleanup up the name for leaving in Category:Locomotives by railway. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (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:Work in progress images[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Work in progress images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to the category description, this category is for non-free images which are tagged for deletion and where the Graphic Lab is working on an improved non-free version or a free alternative. Its scope seems to be too narrow, but the category name is too broad: "work in progress images" could refer to images which convey the idea of a work in progress, which was my first thought when I saw this category, or to images (such as incomplete maps or images undergoing restoration) which are still being worked on by invidiaul editors. Category:Graphic Lab seems to include those categories used by the project, so delete unless the category still serves a function—currently it contains two talk page archive. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (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:Featured sound nominations[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Featured sound nominations to Category:Wikipedia featured sound nominations
Nominator's rationale: Pages related to the featured content processes currently seem to be categorized in two category trees: Category:Wikipedia featured content, which contains project pages related to administration of the featured content process, and Category:Featured content, which contains actual featured articles, lists, sounds, et cetera. A category of nomination pages clearly falls in the scope of the former (the parent category is Category:Wikipedia featured sound candidates). (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (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:Non-free sounds[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Non-free sounds to Category:Wikipedia non-free sounds
Nominator's rationale: Per category naming conventions, "[c]ategories used for Wikipedia administration [should be] prefixed with the word "Wikipedia" (no colon)" as needed for clarity. From the perspective of a reader, not an experienced editor, "non-free sounds" can be somewhat unclear. Also, for consistency with the parent categories, Category:Wikipedia non-free content and Category:Wikipedia sounds. (Category creator not notified because: bot-created). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (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:Albinistic artists and entertainers[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 (merged to Category:People with albinism to retain articles in parent). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albinistic artists and entertainers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete? I created this category, back when. Was just about to create Category:Albinistic politicians since so many of the entries remaining in Category:People with albinism are/were politicians, when it occurred to me that both of these ideas might be overcategorization. Creating subcats. like these appeals to my sense of keeping the main "people with" category uncluttered, but the intersection of phenotype and occupation may be too trivial. I'll leave it up to CfD to decide, rather than just create another subcat. that might also need to be removed. Also, there is no general Category:Artists and entertainers parent cat. to put the nominated category into. If it is kept in some form, it may need renaming or forking or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For almost any other intersection of "albino" and "profession" I'd say right away to delete it as trivial, but this one just might be notable, like when the artists attracts people by being an albino. In our times this is hardly likely though, so delete. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleting, please upmerge to Category:People with albinism so as not to take the articles out of the category tree entirely. Also, if kept, I would prefer the formulation Category:{Profession} with albinism rather than Category:Albinistic {profession} for consistency with the parent category. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:27, 3 December 2009 (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:Recipient of Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize[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:Recipients of the Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize (I assume this is what was meant by the nomination). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Recipient of Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize to Category:Recipients of Vautrin Lud International Geography Prize
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a list category, and therefore its name should be plural. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename: That's just an obvious typo fix. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with SMcCandlish. Obvious typo. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename But this is no typo. It is, however, according to our naming conventions (categories). Debresser (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article is Lauréat Prix International de Géographie Vautrin Lud. As an award category, I would normally suggest that this should be listified and deleted, but the article describes it as the equivalent of a Nobel prize for its subject: I therefore do not make that suggestion. Nevertheless the category and article should have matching names. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2009 (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:Distributed data sharing[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. — ξxplicit 07:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Distributed data sharing to Category:Distributed data storage
Nominator's rationale: See Distributed data store. 4th-otaku (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rename': All subcats use "storage" as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:34, 2 December 2009 (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:Number-one singles in Japan[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 as nominated. Possibility of a future nomination to make the name more clear is still open. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Number-one singles in Japan to Category:Oricon Weekly number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: In compliance with Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Dutch Top 40 number-one singles. The two mentioned charts are published by a separate outlet as is the charts in Japan. While others such as Category:Number-one singles in Australia and Category:Number-one singles in New Zealand are issued by their Recording Industry Association. MS (Talk|Contributions) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (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 11:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The rename would remove any reference to Japan, which is arguably important information. What about Category Oricon Weekly number-one singles in Japan or something? If this closes without resolution on this point, consider this a weak rename support comment; nominator's general point is valid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:37, 2 December 2009 (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:Country Origin 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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Country Origin players to Category:New South Wales Country Origin team players
Nominator's rationale: There is a QLD County Origin team. Mattlore (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2009 (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 10:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/request for clarification: There seem to be three jargon terms at play here, none of which mean anything to anyone outside of the field of inquiry of the categories and articles in question. These are "Country Origin" and "County Origin", as mentioned above (why are these capitalized?), and "state of origin" (not capitalized, and looks to actually be grammatical) in the parent category. I don't think anyone's going to be able to !vote on this without more information on what this stuff means, why it's being named so inconsistently (including why the proposed name perpetuates the inconsistency), and what the nature of the dispute is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ah, well first of all County is a typo - it should be Country. The New South Wales Country team plays against a City team each year in what is basically a "Sydney" vs "Rest of New South Wales" match. The concept of "State of Origin" is an Australian-originated concept where players play from the State/region they grew up in rather than the region they are currently in, so Sydney based players from the bush still represent the Country team - as opposed to a Residents team. I'm not so sure there is a dispute, because no one has yet objected, but I listed it here because I didn't think it fell under the speedy rational. Mattlore (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (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:Hong Kong football templates[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 9#Category:Hong Kong football templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football manager history templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates
Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football squad templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates
Nominator's rationale: There are currently two categories for football squads and managers; this seems excessive to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 23 November 2009 (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 08:47, 2 December 2009 (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:Disambiguation containing homophones[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disambiguation containing homophones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Little-used and questionable use category. No response to question (from 2008) on talk page about its intended utility. JHunterJ (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIC. Category is underused. List of dialect-independent homophones and List of dialect-dependent homophones are more useful. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:51, 2 December 2009 (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.

Various categories of "National Park areas" by state[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: Categories tagged and  Relisted at 2009 DEC 14 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice, within Category:United States National Park Service, various state-level categories that all seem misnamed. These are Category:National Park areas in Arkansas, etc. However, the term "National Park area in State" would refer only to National Parks within a given State, and not to other areas like National Historic Sites, National Monuments, etc. that are under National Park Service control. I think the creator/users must have intended for the broader definition to apply.

Propose 30 or so renames:

doncram (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually maybe they should all be renamed to "National Park System" areas rather than "National Park Service areas. These seem to be addressing the units within the nation-wide List of areas in the United States National Park System. And the categories correspond somewhat to entries in lists like:

etc. doncram (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move to Service. I think these System lists should be moved to Service. Reywas92Talk 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to "...National Park System," which makes the most sense to me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea of renaming. Although, National Park System may be more appropriate. While the National Park Serivce manages all these areas, the literature about the Service and the various areas, refers to them as the National Park System. I was confused when I tried to bring the listings together in a Category for the National Park Service/System and found only the titled "National Parks" in these state categories. Most authors separate the titled National Parks from other units, so they can concentrate on the 'highlights' and have fewer places to gather information from. Therefore, I support renaming these categories to simplify the links in Wikipedia and to connect the public to the wider system. (Chris Light (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support rename; prefer "system" to "service" on the basis of the logic already given, but am okay with either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, Support renaming, and prefer renaming to use System. Using "System" is consistent with the several years-old Featured List List of areas in the United States National Park System and with several newer state-level list-articles, perhaps one or two being FLs too. All these list-articles are newer than these categories, I believe. All editors here support renaming to some consistent scheme and I think all but Reywas92 are indifferent or prefer "System". It would be much a bigger change, beyond our ability to accomplish here, to change all the list-articles to use "Service". So I suggest making this change to achieve consistency, now, without attempting here to determine whether "System" or "Service" is better for the list-articles. doncram (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per National Park Service. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you prefer that? I thot I stated good reasons to make the category change to "System" not to "Service". If you do not explain your reasoning I tend to think you did not consider all that has been discussed and then this !vote and perhaps other !votes should be disregarded. doncram (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update/problems User:Hmains has been changing categories of items in the categories under discussion, while this CFD has been going on, before and after I notified him of the CFD. I am concerned that I may not have started the CFD properly, like if there is some way I should put a notice on each category under discussion. But, given one is aware of a CFD in process, shouldn't it be obvious that the category items under discussion should not be changed until a decision is made? doncram (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides continuing further to edit more of the items under discussion, Hmains indicates at his talk page that he sees that this "...CfD is not properly formed and will be thrown out as soon as reviewed by an administrator. You are not following any of the Cfd rules which are well established. I will not write anything there." I don't participate often at CFD and I don't know what CFD rules would rule out the validity of this CFD. Can anyone else explain? doncram (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. None of the named (or unnamed) categories above were tagged with a {{subst:cfr}} to notify interested watchers of the said categories. I recommend that the reviewing administrator relist this and that somone tag each of the categories we are considering. Carlaude:Talk 14:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve days later, and the categories still have not been tagged. After the nominator tags them, the debate should be relisted. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (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:Bioclimatics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bioclimatics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: *Delete. Although this is not a reason for deletion the most of the current contents does not reflect the common usage of the word. The title is open to misinterpretation. A more apt title may be bioclimatology but such a category is not likely to be populated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep Although I agree with the nominator that this is very open to misinterpretation, I believe the arguments to keep below hold more weight. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong mantain. In this category are included category:sustainable building and 8 articles Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie (The most notable features of the bioclimatic facade), Manfred Curry, Holdridge life zones (The Holdridge life zones system is a global bioclimatic scheme for the classification of land areas), Andrew Delmar Hopkins (he also developed the Law of Bioclimatics.), Sergio Los (is considered one of the main interpreters of the Regional Bioclimatic Architecture) , Nouvelle Planète, Ian Ritchie (architect) ( Maurice Lack, an architect specializing in bioclimatics) and Ken Yeang . So, there are a lot (and can be included more) of articles about this topic. --Nopetro (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Nominator has, self-admittedly, not provided any valid reason for deletion, and further admits that proposed alternative is not viable. Discussion is largely impenetrable, consisting of little but links the relevance of which are unclear, and no actual rationales given, pro or con. Ergo, this entire CfD is, well, noise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To group articles by a common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2009 (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/2009_December_2&oldid=1138391964"