Category:US Army All-American football 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.
Nominator's rationale: U.S. is generally written with the periods, and most other categories with "U.S. Army" use the periods, as do our articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 1 September 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 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:Rename. "Ruling clans" is too POV, and also lets folks just chuck in random clan names which once provided a ruler or two to some larger dynasty. Note also that all the other language wikis linked are "Dynasties of India" or similar. I'm open to "Dynasties of" or "Former dynasties of", with the latter maybe being more precise since these dynasties are generally defunct. WP:INDIA has already been discussing this issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and as discussed at WT:INB -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, & remove the many individuals here. Some idiot added the whole of the Category:Rashtrakuta Dynasty - most now removed. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No other country has a category similar to one being proposed.The nearest categories are in Category:Royal families or Category:Former monarchies.For sake of uniformity we should rename to it something like Former monarchies of India or Royal families of India.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe no other country has such a category, but for example Germany, which is the best European comparison to India, could certainly do with one, splitting Category:German noble houses between the independent princes of the Holy Roman Empire & other nobility. To many people "Royal families of India" would suggest families who had been kings/emperors of india, which of course is not the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Considering that India being a democracy and a republic there are dynasties are no more ruling it or parts of it. So all the dynasties are former dynasties. Therefore we can avoid "former" word and rename ruling clans category to just Category:Dynasties of India.Other dynasties categories named above also do not have "former" prefix. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - perhaps Former royal families of India could also be considered. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is too tall an order, but is there any way to phrase the cat so as to avoid the abovementioned COI issues? I'm just concerned (based on precedent) that people will be trying to categorise an entire clan/name/ethnicity as "royal" because one or two members thereof held some sort of "royal" position at some point. Note that currently the entire cat Category:Maratha clans is jammed in there. Is every Maratha clan "ruling" or "royal"? Well, according to some of the POV pushers at least... MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something. I would suggest Category:Princely families of India. "Royal" is cognate with regal from the Latin rex, translated "king", which is inappropriate in the Indian context. There, the cognate word is rajah often referred to a person more in the nature of a landed gentleman than a ruler. In India, there were Maharajahs, Nizams, and various other titles. Under the British Raj, these were collectively called "Princes". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rajahs were certainly rulers, and majarajahs in the Middle Ages often ruled larger populations than any European monarch. Calling many of the more important older dynasties such as the Mughals, Cholas etc "princes" would be very POV & inappropriate. Category:Ruling families of India avoids some of these issues, perhaps with a "former2, although I doubt that is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Families" is a great deal more restrictive than "clans" & if applied properly would greatly reduce the number of articles in the category (I know there is an issue over how far to extend a "family", but even so). Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former dynasties of India as first proposed. I have thought over the "Former dynasties" v/s "Dynasties" thing and think it would be better to include the word former so that someone does not get the wrong idea that these dynasites still rule(at least nominally). For example the Category:Dynasties of Morocco includes one presently-ruling dynasty. Agreed that the category 'Former dynasites of X ' do not exist but it should not hinder us. --Deepak D'Souza 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then there should be "former" prefix to categories like Indian Monarchs, Indian Maharajas, Indian rajas, Nawabs of India, Indian princesses and so on. For sake of consistency let us go for Category:Dynasties of India.Thanks. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Comment Concur with above that "former" is probably understood, so I'm good with Category:Dynasties of India, which is also what the other language wikis are using. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested "former" was unnecessary with "ruling familes"; I think this is less the case with "dynasties", but will do with consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 9 September 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:Destroyer classes of the Netherlands[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. --Xdamrtalk 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per previous CFDs (one, two) which have found "ship class by country" categories redundant. All members of the category are in the appropriate categories already, so if consensus is to delete, no re-categorization is necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:11, 1 September 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 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. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Another nomination of this type. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 2 September 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:merge Category:Acquisitions by Google to Category:Google acquisitions, with no prejudice for nominating Category:Google acquisitions (and other similarly-named subcategories of Category:Mergers and acquisitions) for renaming to the Acquisitions by Foo or Companies acquired by Foo format. The discussion is basically a "no consensus" concerning the question of what the category title should be, but there is consensus that two categories are not needed. Consolidating them now will make any future nomination to rename less complicated. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 01:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's a duplicate of an existing category. Ikluft (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of "Category:Acquisitions by Google". I created it because "Category:Google Acquisitions" is a little bit not updated. Wild mine (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating what articles are in a category can be accomplished by adding or removing the category name on articles. There is no need for an identical category. --Mysdaaotalk 12:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the cited Microsoft and Cisco precedents, surely the "Acquisitions by FOO" format is less ambiguous? This is especially in these days when the acquirer can soon become an acquired. AOL (consumer of CompuServe, now consumed) or Sun Microsystems (MySQL, StorageTek, now consumed) are examples in technology, Abbey (bank) in finance. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Companies acquired by Google (and reverse merge other category) as suggested by Peterkingiron as this gives the correct degree of precision. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 3 September 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: Since we don't have an article on "computer language" for almost a year now, I propose this category be deleted. The only reason I'm doing this busy work rater than redirecting {{compu-lang-stub}} to {{PL-stub}} is that an administrator thinks it is necessary and undid my redirect although he has no comment on content of my action, only the form thereof. Pcapping 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category and Redirect the stub. "Computer language" = "Programming language", the two are synonyms, having parallel stub templates and categories is duplicative and unnecessary. --Cybercobra(talk) 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like uncontroversial maintenance to me. — Miym (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the stub and category where originally named "computer language" so they could include languages which where not specifically designed for use as programming languages (e.g. PostScript, XML and friends). It might still be useful to use a somewhat more generic name for this reason, but may also be over-generification, as I suspect a vast majority of these stubs are indeed only related to programming concepts. —Ruud 11:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Twinkle cannot automatically file the stub category deletion discussion in the right place. Someone care to move this discussion over there? Pcapping 00:30, 2 September 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:No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 08:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. All treaties are "political". There is no such discrete concept of a "political treaty". Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Seems obvious. --Cybercobra(talk) 11:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, everything is political, according to some. But "Aviation agreements", Intellectual property, copyright treaties & so on are not very political. But with 5 members this does not seem worth keeping. DeleteJohnbod (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly—it does raise the question of what the definition of the category would be. If politicians get involved in its negotiation, is it "political"? Or are we talking about treaties that establish international political unions? Is an environmental treaty—such as the Kyoto Protocol—a "political treaty"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument of Johnbod, that there are commercial treaties, etc. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a valid sub-cat of Category:Treaties by topic. Category:Treaties is the grandparent category and it would not help to overpopulate it. I'm opening to a more precise renaming of the nominated category, though. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:36, 4 September 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:Rename. This is a subcategory of Category:Impact craters on Earth, and there are possible impact craters off-Earth, so this should be renamed to match its parent, and to be clear about what it categorizes. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This suggestion did not gain traction in the CFR for the Cat:Craters hierarchy which closed just 3 days ago. The closing admin did not accept it - so we have a determination of consensus on this matter already. I don't believe this can/should be reconsidered so soon. In any case, it would just unnecessarily lengthen the name of the category. The concept of possible craters off Earth is non-notable - there are no articles on Wikipedia to provide examples. Where are the articles? Where are the reliable sources? This can't proceed without an answer to those questions. The processes of erosion on Earth make it unique in placing any doubt upon impact craters. The situation is compounded by the fact that there is only slow progress on the science of recognizing impact structures, even 50 years after the science was founded by Eugene Shoemaker. Until there are articles about proposed and debated impact craters on other celestial bodies, "possible impact craters" is synonymous with "possible impact craters on Earth". Therefore this renaming is unnecessary. The fact that it's a subcategory of Category:Impact craters on Earth is enough to clarify already. Ikluft (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the notability of impact craters off Earth. It isalways possible that a few of the are or will be notable. Like a landing of a space vehicle in one of them. Or a sience fiction story taking place in one. Could you do me a favor? Could you explain this thing about notability to the idiot who created thousands of asteroid stubs? Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I didn't call you that. :-) The problem is we're talking about categorization. There need to be articles before there's a category. This renaming proposal is based on the concept that there may some day be articles about possible impact craters off Earth. WP:CRYSTAL says we don't play guessing games - we wait for things to actually happen, or at least get published. Ikluft (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL?? Since when has clarity and reducing maintenance headaches been a bad thing in category names? This is done all the time at CFD. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the articles about possible impacts off Earth? There aren't any. So it would be WP:CRYSTAL to claim that the point to the renaming is that there may some day be some. Ikluft (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point which I'm not sure you were asking... for craters off Earth, yes, plenty are notable. There's just no doubt about their impact origin, and therefore wouldn't be in a "possible" category. See the various subcats of Category:Impact craters other than Category:Impact craters on Earth. "Possible" impact craters are currently only on Earth. Adding "on Earth" is redundant - and there's no reason to expect that will change. Ikluft (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Reduces future maintenance due to people dropping future non-Earth structures into a category without "Earth" in the name; if they are not aware of the parent category then junk will accumulate. With the high-resolution Lunar surveys, we can expect subtle structures offworld to get more study soon. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lunar craters are all from impacts, no doubt about the origin. Impacts are the only form of erosion on the moon. Ikluft (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are already discredited impact craters, and some of those are not on Earth. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty on Earth - see the list at IFSG's Impact Database. If you want to claim there are any off Earth, you need to provide a citation for that. Ikluft (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Possible impact craters off Earth do exist. To name a few: Oceanus_Procellarum on Moon is hypothesized by some to be a huge impact crater, or coronae on Miranda. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 12 September 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:keep. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. this category only contains hospitals in Brunei and duplicates and is very similar to the category Health in Brunei. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 1 September 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:Rename. The category needs some sort of disambiguation to keep British ships that should be in Category:V and W class destroyers from being miscategorized. The main article for the ship class is at Greek V class destroyer, but I have no reference materials to know if "Greek V class destroyer" is how the ships are referred to, or if this was just an invented name. The ship class consists of two German V1-class destroyers, so I don't know if it should really by "Greek V1 class destroyers". The other option—"V1 class destroyers of the Hellenic Navy"—matches the naming style used for other multi-navy ship class categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:18, 1 September 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:Self-withdrawal; I agree with Otto's point and am willing to work on implementing this distinction manually.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These are essentially duplicate categories. The nominated category may imply a more dramatic change—a transfer of territory from one state to the other. The target category may imply a lesser change—a tweaking of a boundary or a final settlement of a disputed boundary. However, ultimately the difference is only one of degree, and the categories should be merged since there's no clear line as to when a "boundary treaty" becomes one that "involves territorial changes". I find the target category to be more NPOV, since a treaty might settle a territorial dispute in the way that one state claimed it existed in reality all along. From that state's perspective, no "territorial change" in fact took place at all—it just legally confirmed its claim over the territory. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, good point on greater NPOV with latter term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to more accurately reflect content of the category, though now that the merge target is the parent, upmerge would be more accurate. Alansohn (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are plenty of treaties that involve territories changing hands but do not affect boundaries. The Treaty of Paris (1898) for example transferred several territories from Spain to the US but the borders of neither country were changed as a result. This strikes me as a useful distinction which would be lost by the merger. Any treaties in the former category that do affect actual boundaries should be manually moved but both categories should be kept. Otto4711 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Otto's very good point. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Otto's point. That is a good point and probably the best way to maintain a distinction. The problem is likely that this is not the way the categories have been implemented in practice. I'd be fine to withdraw this, keep both, and work on sorting this out manually. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:56, 3 September 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.
