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, category contents appear to have been divided between the two related categories during the course of discussion following Good Ol'factory's suggestion. BencherliteTalk 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – at present the article Shipping container would seem to be the main article. Was there consensus for the 'rename/move' of a few days ago? (I have not myself heard of the phrase 'Intermodal container' ... is this a US term?) Occuli (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm seeing the same thing as Occuli I think—from my reading of the two articles an "intermodal container" appears to be a type of shipping container. This may be an error in the way the articles are written. But the article shipping container was not "renamed", as both still exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background, again:
The content originally was on Containerization. This was fine for six and a half years and there were ~150 incoming links via the Shipping container redirect.
Following discussion, the material specifically covering stackable 2.4-metre hollow cuboid objects was split out to Shipping container.
Without discussion, an editor redirected Shipping container (now a redirect again) to point at Container (bottles, cardboard boxes, etc); breaking 150 established links in the process.
A brand new from-scratch article was started at Shipping container covering "materials that can be used to pack goods in transit" (eg. fibreboard packaging, not 2.4-metre hollow cuboid objects).
The templates and 98% of the now broken incoming links were fixed to point to Intermodal container.
All that is left to be moved to match is this Category.
The editors involved with the undiscussed moves and later creation of the brand-new Shipping container article are also keen to use Category:Shipping containers and have started adding articles to it.
The present scope of this category (stackable 2.4-metre hollow cuboid objects) is being diluted by the addition of fibreboard packaging, wooden creates, oil drums...
Comment. Complicated background, but in light of the lack of consensus leading up to this discussion, it seems to me that there would be a much simpler solution: (1) create Category:Intermodal containers (no discussion is required to do this); (2) make it a subcategory of Category:Shipping containers; (3) move the articles about intermodal containers into the correct category, while leaving articles about wooden crates, oil drums, etc. in Category:Shipping containers. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had had even the slightest whiff that it was going to take more than 48 hours, I probably would have (and then request a history merge later). However, under the terms the terms of the GFDL there is a requirement to preserve authorship information, and the most preferable way of doing this is with a proper move action. If that weren't the case, we'd all be merrily copy-and-pasting content around and WP:CfR would be redundant. Since I am one of the authors of that page, I would appreciate if my copyright be respected and this move undertaken in the correct manner; so as I am granting that respect to others by requesting this move (rather than copying and pasting). The irrelevant additions to the category have been reverted until the bot has fired. Once the category has been renamed, those edits can be safely reverted without the bot messing them up. —Sladen (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a copy-and-paste. I'm suggesting that the existence of both categories is appropriate. One should be a subcategory of the other. I don't see any good reason why Category:Shipping containers could not continue to exist as a parent category to Category:Intermodal containers. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both categories are appropriate which is precisely why this move request was started a week ago. It's impossible to add one category (the stackable 2.4-metre cuboid hollow object one) as a child of the other (the packing systems for transportation one) until there are two... eg. it's been moved to a name that doesn't clash. I can add append Category:Shipping containers to the bottom, but doing that has no value until it's been moved. —Sladen (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Update: added the circular reference anyway...[reply]
If both are appropriately kept, you can just create the new one. You don't need a discussion because the history won't transfer. When a category is "moved", it's not really "moved". The old one is just deleted and the new one is just created with a bot. Seriously. That's how things are done with categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. BTW, is that a bug in MediaWiki, or a bug in the processes used for moving categories? —Sladen (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quirk of MediaWiki. We would move them the normal way if we could, but we can't. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the common usage atleast in my area is that an intermodal container is a 20-ft long container that can be moved by cargoship, train or truck. The "standard" container is 40-ft long, and is not referred to as an intermodal container. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your input would have been particularly welcomed during the {{move}} discussion. It is IMHO not a move that was needed, nor necessarily improved clarity, nor was in line with WP guidelines. However, it happened. And there is consensus that if the article/category/template stays at "intermodal container" is is more likely to stay pure. —Sladen (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) (My own common usage understanding concluded that "shipping container" was the hollow cuboid object and "intermodal" was the transport system around them).[reply]
Keep, maybe divide per above. Since "intermodal" is a term only familiar to those in the business, who don't seem able to agree what it refers to, "shipping" should probably be worked into any new "intermodal" category name somewhere, regardless of the article title. We often do this if it is needed for clarity. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShipping container. This is the term known to the general public. "Intermodal container" may indeed be the technically correct name, but its meaning is not obvious. Accordingly, Reverse merge "Intermodal container". Take adminstrative action against the person who messed everything up. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 11 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: To match the dated subcategories. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category was deleted per discussion here. However, that discussion contains no arguments that pertain to the present nomination. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alternatively we could consider deleting the word "Wikipedia" from the dated subcategories. However the reason I made my nomination this way is because 1. it is the easier of the two 2. it conforms with the guideline here. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alternative. Because I have proposed removing the requirement for the Wikipedia prefix. And as far as "easier" goes most administrative categories don't start with "Wikipedia" - the word is superfluous except when there is a subject matter category which would naturally have same name (Tools - Wikipedia tools for example):- I would submit this is an extremely rare event and the "Wikipedia" prefix can be used then. In general "Pages", "Articles", "Templates", "Categories", "Redirects", "Users" and "User pages" (just for a start) make it clear that they are not subject matter categories and the addition of "Wikipedia" is superfluous. RichFarmbrough, 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- it has been previously decided. I do not support the alternative, especially as those "dated" subpages were renamed out-of-process. There have been cases where a word like Pages et alia would be confusing, but this is not one of them. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this editor previously was in favor of the alternative. Just today, after he came back from a 3rr block to whch I sent him, he changed his mind. More to the point: the issue is not the word "Wikipedia" perse, but uniformity, which will allow easy template programming. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response -- No, the sentence as originally mistakenly written was contrary to the !vote ("Keep") and the "especially as ..." clause following. Noticed as I was updating the listing with copious examples. My practice for an actual change would be a strike. Furthermore, I have consistently opposed the out-of-process renames (see WT:CFD sections "CfD categories renamed" and "More out of process category renames"). Your attempt to exploit a minor typing error, subsequently corrected, is egregious. Please don't cast aspersions on my intent, motivations, and/or thoughts. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was closed in this edit as "rename". William Allen Simpson has reverted this closure with irrelevant arguments. I am not sure how such a revert such be treated. The text of a closure says clearly not to modify it... Debresser (talk) 12:39, 16 June 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:Images of Long Island Rail Road stations[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:SPEEDY DELETED, empty and creator requested deletion. Postdlf (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although partially inspired by Category:Images of Metra stations, my purpose behind creating this category was to use it as a temporary location before moving those images to the commons. While I take a great deal of pride in creating such categories, thus would be sad to see it go, and there's always the chance that some non-commons image of a Long Island Rail Road station might turn up, I believe the category has served it's purpose, and no longer has any need to exist. DanTD (talk) 12:48, 4 June 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.
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. BencherliteTalk 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete. A category not about the soup. Needs disambiguation to match Chowder (TV series). The other alternative is to delete as a small and eponymous category for a TV series, as has been done with many in the past. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little or no potential for expansion. Lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly small category (but hilarious cartoon). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Underpopulated category. Unlikely to grow. — Σxplicit 19:33, 4 June 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:Archived image and media for deletion discussions[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. BencherliteTalk 10:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent, of course. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per nom. — Σxplicit 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Per nom and per contents. — Occuli (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is not the first such case. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 4 June 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.
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. BencherliteTalk 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree — I think everything in that category is actually a video game.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 19:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - logical step. ~ Amory(user • talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 June 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.
Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. You're comments would be much appreciated! Thanks. ---kilbad (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. BencherliteTalk 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This article was newly-created but completely mis-titled; the name "North Cascades" ends at the US-Canada border, north of which the official name is "Cascade Mountains" but the conventional usage is "Canadian Cascades"....er, well, at least for the southwestern part of the area (the Skagit Range and the southern part of the Hozameen Range, for the northern and eastern extensions of it "the Cascades" or "the Cascade Mountains" are the more normal usages but I think Category:Cascade Mountains of British Columbia would be too unwieldy although its sister category is Category:North Cascades of Washington, so maybe including "of British Columbia" is a worthwhile endeavour, though "Canadian Cascades" addresses the "nationality" issue sufficiently (they have a common parent article North Cascades for which "Canadian Cascades" is a redirect, but "Cascade Mountains" redirects to the Cascade Range article, which is also bi-national). I'd be happy with either choice, both of which are "definite", so I didn't make this "category to be decided by consensus", though consensus on a choice between the two is viable; my own preference is for "Canadian Cascades" though, once again, "Canadian Cascades" is the official usage. Other British Columbia mountain range categories, so far, tend to use official names but some are anticipated with informal names as no official names exist; this includes the northern subranges of the "Cascade Mountains of British Columbia", i.e. flanking the eastern side of the Fraser Canyon north to Lytton which have no formal subrange-name and one has to be established for categorization purposes. Just not now.Skookum1 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to note that Category:Canadian Rockies is not an official name either, though widely used; in pure geography it's a combination of the Continental Ranges, Hart Ranges, Muskwa Ranges and in most perceptions also the Rocky Mountain Foothills so doesn't have a single "catmore/main" article with an officially-derived name ("Canadian Rockies" being unofficial). i.e. that category isn't "Rocky Mountains of British Columbia and Alberta" or "Rocky Mountains of Canada"....Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I remember that Skookum1 has suggested the name "Canadian Cascades" when I created Category:North Cascades of Washington (a long time ago). However, I think I mixed it up and did "North Cascades" for the Canadian cat. I support renaming the category as long as its contents are kept. Shannon1talkcontribs 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually got somewhat confused by the image at right, since it is used as the map for the North Cascades article. The caption does not mention that north of the border a different name is used (at least, the last time I looked at it). That's most probably what confused me, since that map was used in the debate about the Washington Cascades cat also. Shannon1talkcontribs 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize or rationalize why you made the mistake; the map caption could use clarification, and I've done my best with making the article cross-border in nature; see its talkpage for earlier discussions about that. It may be that there's a need to make two separate articles in order to keep the matter clear; but ostensibly the two N/S of the border are the same major division of the full Cascade Range.Skookum1 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if an admin would kindly resolve this issue, the population of this category can proceed, but I/we can't do that until the name is changed. I would have asked for speedy renaming, but the criteria for speedy renaming did not include "mistaken name at time of creation".Skookum1 (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The division between the USian and Canadian parts of the mountain range seems artificial to me: is it truly relevant to categorization? Can't we simply have Category:North Cascades and not make a distinction? —hike395 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and half-resolution. DUH!! I just realized I can just create Category:Canadian Cascades and all that's needed is to delete Category:North Cascades of British Columbia, or redirect it anyway. I've been on painkillers all week due to recent oral surgery and wasn't thinking clearly/efficiently.Skookum1 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it being a subcat of Category:North Cascades, I guess; I already made it a subcat of Category:Cascade Range which is why I didn't use "Cascade Mountains" as a cat name, since that's a common alt-name for Cascade Range. Category:North Cascades of Washington already exists though I don't think "of Washington" was ever necessary. We can just start Category:North Cascades, move over all the stuff in the "in Washington" one and then apply to have the "of Washington" one deleted. This discussion seems resolved without admin help - do I just remove it or does it still have to wait for admin/templating?Skookum1 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 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:Neo-Byzantine buildings in the United States[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. BencherliteTalk 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It seems fairly normal in "architecture" categories to describe articles grouped together by architectural style as "Fooish architecture" rather than "Fooish buildings", which seems sensible, since the potential article Neo-Byzantine architecture in the United States (for which, judging from this diverse and well-populated category, there is a need) should slot in there as the main article, even if it's not a building itself. TheGrappler (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming Things other than buildings might belong in the category, for instance, architectural elements, materials, people, neighborhoods, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That category doesn't seem to have a subcategory for every architectural style or sub-style. As far as usefulness, a category of all neo-Byzantine articles is more useful. It is possible to over-categorize. Drawn Some (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is Category:Neo-Byzantine architecture already (into which architectural elements, materials, people, neighborhoods, etc. can go). If this doesn't need a US subcat then the status quo is just fine.Occuli (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: Since I created those subcategories, it's not vital that they be followed - I'd be happy to do a batch renaming to "Buildings" or "Buildings and structures" if that is necessary. On reflection: "architecture" has the advantage that it includes e.g. architects, who are not buildings. Also regional variations of the main style e.g. Bristol Byzantine for the UK category wouldn't go in if it was in "Buildings" form. The basis I was working off when making categories was the various "Gothic architecture" categories; a style that operated in a similar period to Neo-Byzantine (and on the basis of their categories I don't think this is overcatting). The U.S. subcategory was pre-existing so obviously someone had a similar idea before me, they just called it "buildings" instead of "architecture". TheGrappler (talk) 19:23, 4 June 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy delete as housekeeping (G6). BencherliteTalk 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect spelling (Subdsitricts) and misunderstanding about category creation - it could be renamed or simply deleted - either way the category as it stands is useless SatuSuro 00:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this is a 'speedy'. There are stub articles for each of the subdistricts so it can be populated - see {{Kepahiang Regency}}. Occuli (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it can be - great! SatuSuro 15:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category was actually populated by {{Kepahiang Regency}} which contained the spelling mistake. I have fixed this so the misspelt category is now empty; and I have created the correctly spelt target. So it remains to delete an empty misspelt category. Occuli (talk) 16:29, 4 June 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.
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 both. Once the rename is done, anyone who cares enough to recreate the old name as a category redirect can do so; I'm not sure it's worth it, though. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea why this was moved back since almost all the other categories are in X from Y format, which is very well established by now.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions what will the re-name achieve? Will people look for the category of simply navigate by it? If they look will the category be in alphabetical lists? If so are people more likely to look under New York or Musicians? How will it appear on the article pages? RichFarmbrough, 07:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, I don't think it got "moved back" per se — I looked at the edit histories of a few random articles in the category, and at least of the ones I looked at not a single one of them ever got moved forward in the first place. Perhaps bot error, perhaps it got overlooked in a batch nomination. Support rename, but we could probably just speedy it as an accidental oversight on an already-established decision and set a willing AWBer loose on it. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename -- without category redirect, as it's unlikely that somebody would mistype it. None of the others in January used a redirect. Overlooked in batch nomination. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:47, 11 June 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.
