Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8[edit]

Category:University of Nevada[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: merge (University of Nevada Press will not be merged but could be added again if deemed appropriate). Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:University of Nevada to Category:University of Nevada, Reno
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Use the fully qualified name which has most of the entries. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 8 February 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:Bridges completed in the 1st century[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, no consensus on BC/BCE. Kbdank71 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bridges completed in the 1st century to Category:1st-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 2nd century BC to Category:2nd-century BC bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 1st century BC to Category:1st-century BC bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 2nd century to Category:2nd-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 3rd century to Category:3rd-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 4th century to Category:4th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 6th century to Category:6th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 7th century to Category:7th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 10th century to Category:10th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 12th century to Category:12th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 13th century to Category:13th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 14th century to Category:14th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 15th century to Category:15th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 16th century to Category:16th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 17th century to Category:17th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 18th century to Category:18th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 19th century to Category:19th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 20th century to Category:20th-century bridges
Category:Bridges completed in the 21st century to Category:21st-century bridges
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It is common for most by century categories to begin with the century and then list what it is about. Completed in is, in my opinion, an extra statement since this is clear from the introduction and likely well understood as the purpose of the category. This will either be a test nomination or I'll add the remaining ones if this seems to have clear support. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. Tim! (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support while the date of completion is clear in the present naming, bridges whose construction spanned the turn of a century may get placed in 2 categories (but this is less a problem than cathedrals which often took many centuries to build). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all except change "BC" to "BCE" to relieve pro-Christian bias. Otto4711 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has the MoS been changed so that the BC to BCE change is considered acceptable? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. BCE is a politicially incorrect form devised by those who wish the deny thge hisotrical fact that Jesus lived. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a misperception. The issue is not so much whether Jesus lived (I happen to believe that he did, even if I don't believe everything that's said about him), but whether we want to explicitly tie our system of dividing time periods in human history with his birth and death. Doing so carries an inherent bias toward Christianity, and I think it is that with which most people take issue. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I'm concerned that Category:20th-century bridges could be understood as meaning "bridges in existence during the 20th century". This could lead to a situation where a brigde completed in the 16th century and still in existence would be placed in every category from the 16th century onward. Support changing "BC" to "BCE". –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the nomination the category introductions clearly state that it is for bridges completed in that century so there should not be grounds for confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but that assumes that people will read the category description. However, as I've never really liked the "Structures completed in [Year, Decade, Century]" naming format, my comment really is more of a "weak oppose". Another issue, which is mostly one of personal style preference, is having different naming conventions within a single category tree based on the period of time being considered (i.e. Category:Bridges completed in [Year, Decade] versus Category:[Xth]-century bridges). –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:23, 14 February 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:Godchildren of members of the British Royal Family[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Godchildren of members of the British Royal Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Delete trivial and not defining; who your godfather or godmother is doesn't really have much affect on one, any more than other trivialities we dispense with categorizing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, which is especially the case here, as they have vast numbers - Diana POW had over 20 already when she died. There is a list, though the 2 might be compared before deleting.Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. And not an octuplet among them, I'm sure... Cgingold (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ones in California have yet to be baptized, so the jury's still out on that. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a trivial category. It might be worth listifying but I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining. Already exists in list form. Maralia (talk) 03:28, 12 February 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:1450s century architecture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1450s century architecture to Category:1450s architecture
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form of the other decade categories. In reviewing this I noticed that this will be a merge and that the main template is pointing to the badly named category which I'll fix. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 8 February 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:Northern Cyprus[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. Kbdank71 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Northern Cyprus to Category:North Cyprus
Nominator's rationale:
  • 1: All NC's official public organizations adopted new change. For example, The Ministry of Tourism of NC prepared a web site that used "northcyprus" in the address (http://www.northcyprus.cc). Also, the private organizations are obliged to use the new form of name and hence web sites addresses of the privates were changed accordingly. For example: http://www.northcyprus.com , http://www.northcyprus.org etc. Also, almost all private companies completed the name change: For example: The Shipping firm Fergun: http://www.fergun.net Here, in this site, just look at the title page of the web site.
  • 2: There is a quick adoptation of the new name: when you just google (http://www.google.com.tr) the "North Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus", the following hit numbers occur: "North Cyprus": 1 450 000 and "Northern Cyprus": 815 000. But, don't forget to use quotation marks (" ") when googling since only in the quotationed case, the reality is seen very neatly.
  • 3: Dear Friends. You have very rightful for confusing, since one foreigner can easily confuse this. The usage is like that: Long Form: "The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the Short Form: "North Cyprus". You regard the word "Northern" in the long form as a proof of "Northern Cyprus" everywhere. That's false: http://www.kktcb.eu/index.php is the Official Page of Presidency of North Cyprus. Just look at the menu above there: The links are: President & Presidency & Press Office & Documents & Contact & NORTH CYPRUS. The legal name change is clear in the menu.

EuropeanStar (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy "keep", do not rename. EuropeanStar has been blocked as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user VivaNorthCyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While at least he's trying to discuss the matter now, he's also doing wholesale changes against consensus, based on the Northern Cyprus article. (I'd close it myself, but I can't find the instructions for closing CfD items.) Given no attempt to build consensus has been made at Talk:Northern Cyprus, this is a bad-faith nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. I've been tracking the creations of the many incarnations of this user's various sockpuppets, and am pleasantly surprised to see that they actually went to the effort of making a CfD nomination while evading the block. That tells me that the nomination must at least be done in good faith! But I think this is a situation where the category should probably follow the article name. If Northern Cyprus ever moves to North Cyprus, which is not an impossibility in the future, then the categories may be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 9 February 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:Strategic Simulations games[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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest renaming Category:Strategic Simulations games to Category:Strategic Simulations, Inc. games
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I just renamed Strategic Simulations to Strategic Simulations, Inc., as the company was never named Strategic Simulations, only SSI or Strategic Simulations, Inc. Here's a Moby Games profile showing this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 8 February 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:Years in terrorism[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: merge to Category:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century. Kbdank71 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years in terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Rename to Category:Terrorist incidents by decade. This better describes the contents, which consists of sub-categories for Terrorist incidents, by decade. The three latter decades are fully subdivided by year, but that's another matter. (Category creator stopped editing in May 2007) Cgingold (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This type of category is more commonly named Category:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century or Category:20th-century terrorist incidents. The common pattern is a century category that holds decade categories or year categories or both with articles that don't fit into a sub category. Using by decade eliminates year categories or articles that don't fit into a specific decade. In the end it might result in more and less well populated subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the CFD immediately below this, you'll see that the, um, other Cgingold proposed this very category (Category:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century) as the solution to that situation. Somehow or other, he apparently never took notice of this CFD, with my rival plan for those decade-categories. (He says it was on account of having a bad head cold, but I think that's a pretty lame excuse... ) Well, I am willing to go along with that plan (magnanimous fellow that I am), but I feel obliged to point out that it will leave Category:Terrorist incidents in the 2000s kind of dangling -- unless we create Category:Terrorist incidents in the 21st century. Which wouldn't be a bad idea, now that I think of it. I mean, I think we can safely presume that terrorist incidents won't come to a sudden halt on 12-31-2009, so we're probably gonna be needing Category:Terrorist incidents in the 2010s about 11 months from now. Cgingold (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Yes, I agree—what you set out is what I meant to suggest but obviously was forgetting which discussion I was commenting in, treating these both as the same when they are separate. Rename the other category below per the revised nomination (either suggestion there is fine with me), and then merge this category into it. That other Cgingold has wreaked some havoc here! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 9 February 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:Terrorist incidents before 1970[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:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century. Kbdank71 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Terrorist incidents before 1970 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category has an arbitrary inclusionary criterion—the terrorism incident must have occurred before 1970. Terrorism was not invented in 1970, nor was 1970 a seminal year in the development of terrorism. Terrorism has always been practiced, both before and after 1970. (1970 may have been chosen because that is around the time that the PLO started to practice aircraft hijackings. But the dividing line w.r.t. that is too fuzzy—it's not like everything changed in 1970. An El Al Airliner was hijacked by Palestinians in 1968, for example.) Organizing terrorism in categories by century, by decade, and by year is fine (and is done in WP), but there's no need for this arbitrary classification. Good Ol’factory (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended nom per below discussion: Rename to Category:20th-century terrorist incidents or Category:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century and remove non-20th-century incidents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with GO's remarks, and I would further point out that this category overlaps with what is already available through Category:Years in terrorism (which I've just suggested renaming to Category:Terrorist incidents by decade), since that includes sub-cats for the 1950s & 1960s. Additional sub-cats for other decades should be created instead. Cgingold (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This would create many subcats with (so far) only 1 or 2 articles per decade. What is wrong with having Category:Terrorist incidents before 1950 to cover all the decades with no subcats (yet)? Hmains (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see you've cleared out a number of articles and put them in the appropriate decade-categories. I just removed a couple of other articles that didn't belong there because they weren't terrorist incidents. I temporarily left 4 articles about riots/massacres in Palestine which also don't belong as they weren't really terrorist incidents, more like pogroms I'd say. So that takes it down to a grand total of 7 articles, spread out over 5 decades.
I think the name you've suggested is too non-standard and also too expansive, since only the Gunpowder Plot precedes the 20th century. A better alternative would be to rename this to Category:Terrorist incidents in the 20th century, take out Category:Gunpowder Plot, and then use the category as the parent for all of the existing decade-cats up thru the 1990s. We can always create the missing decade-cats at a later point if that seems desirable. Cgingold (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Cgingold has set out above. That seems like the best way to proceed here. I would prefer Category:20th-century terrorist incidents as being more consistent with how century categories are named, but I understand that these terrorism decade categories are already named the other way. Either name would be fine for now and we can work on any desired standardization later. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 9 February 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:Water Overseers of Los Angeles, California[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water Overseers of Los Angeles, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This category is something of an oddball that readers are unlikely to look for as it is a long-defunct position. There are only two articles about people who held this position, and I am doubtful that others will be written. The article Water Overseer of Los Angeles, California already includes a list. If deleted, I will personally take care of merging the articles into appropriate categories. (No idea who the creator was as it was renamed in a mass CFD.) Cgingold (talk) 13:34, 8 February 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:Battles of the Expedition to Port Royal Sound of the American Civil War[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battles of the Expedition to Port Royal Sound of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category too narrow McMuff (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely - Delete per nom. And IIRC there's a whole raft of other 1-article cats like this that should also get the heave-ho. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I take it that the single article is already in suitable parent cats.) Occuli (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is doing just fine cat-wise (and sometimes they are very wise). Cgingold (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Much too narrow for a category. The one substantive article laready has an appropriate category for Naval battles of American Civil War, so there is no need to upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 12 February 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:Swear words[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. Nothing left to merge, only two articles in suggested merge target. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Swear words to Category:Profanity
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Essentially duplicate categories. Category:Profanity is older and is probably more appropriately named. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete - both words are already in the target category. This must be the work of a newbie - note the odd "x-word" sections. Cgingold (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Swear words. There's complete overlap here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Selinker. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, if there's anything to merge at close of this CfD. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 10 February 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_February_8&oldid=1138392206"