Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18[edit]

Category:Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance unmanned aerial vehicles[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 per discussion on the 19th regarding keeping UAV expanded to unmanned aerial vehicles. Kbdank71 16:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance unmanned aerial vehicles to Category:Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance UAVs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent category is Category:UAVs and drones, and "UAV" is a widely understood term applying to this type of aircraft, making it unnecessary to spell it out in the category name (which makes the cat name rather long and unwieldy. The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Original Research needs to go though. Marcus Qwertyus 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's currently under discussion whether we should expand the acronym in the parent category as well. If there's consensus for that change, moving this one in the opposite direction would not make much sense. Jafeluv (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the nom for the parent category. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (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:People from Charlestown, Massachusetts[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) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Charlestown, Massachusetts to Category:People from Charlestown, Boston
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article, Charlestown, Boston. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan with all due respect the Category should not be deleted, it is in reference to the fact that while it is now a part of the City of Boston, Charlestown was for over 250 years a independent Town and City. I do not agree that a person who lived in Charlestown before the community became a part of Boston should be put in the category as People from Boston, in fact it makes no sense to do so. Why would it make sense to categorize some one such as Samuel Morse who for example was born and lived and pre annexation Charlestown and died before the city was annexed by Boston as being from Boston? And as it does not make sense why would you delete the only category that makes sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcewenjr (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 November 2010

Please re-read the nomination - I am not proposing deletion, just renaming to match the article about the place. Please also sign your posts. DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies - my mistake in original nomination, now corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not agree Charlestown is now a part of Boston, but that was not always the case, and renaming it as such implies that all the people in that category are from post annexation Charlestown, Before it was a part of Boston a large parts of Charlestown broke off and became the Town (now city) of Somerville, and a large part of the Town of West Cambridge now Arlington, would you categorize the people who lived in those parts of Charlestown as being from Boston?
Also to list the Former mayors of Chalestown as being from Boston would conflict with the Mayors of Boston who served at the same time. --Wmcewenjr
  • Rename as nom. The category should reflect the present status. I would draw an alaogy with alumni categories where graduates of a merged or renamed colleges are treated as alumni of the successor. The people will still be in a category from people from Charlestown. This is a proposal for rename NOT merger, which I would certainly oppose. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case as I mentioned above the Charlestown which had existed for over 200 years was broken into 2 separate towns in 1842 and a large part has been incorporated into another Town, the university analogy would work for Brighton, or Hyde Park, even South Boston, or Dorchester but not for Charlestown, which was founded in 1620 and encompassed a large area until when in 1842 Somerville was broken off and a large part of the town was annexed by West Cambridge, for 222 years the Town of Charlestown was much larger than the current neighborhood of Charlestown, where would you place the residents that lived in that part of Charlestown say who lived in what became Somerville? Boston and Somerville are two distinct cities. --Wmcewenjr

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:Terra preta[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 14:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Terra preta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename to biochar? I have deleted a few articles from the category and the remaining two are not really suitable for such a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and delete - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:25, 25 November 2010 (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:Shopping malls established in 2010[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Shopping malls established in 2010 to Category:Shopping malls opened in 2010
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Are malls really established in a year or are the opened in a year or are they built and opened in a given year? Then we have conversions from another use to a mall in a given year. Also one could argue that a mall is established when the decisions on financing are in place to make it happen. So maybe a rename to Category:Shopping malls opened in 2010 would be the best choice. This is a trial balloon since more categories would need to be renamed to follow any decision here. This would follow the format of Category:Bridges completed in 2010 and beg the question of creating the missing Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2010. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Category:Shopping malls opened in 2010 per nom. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:00, 19 November 2010 (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:Dominguez and Escalante Expedition[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dominguez and Escalante Expedition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another category from our current favorite geo feature category creator. At this time, this is a single entry category that is trying to work as a list. If the geographic features that were encountered by the expedition are worth mentioning, that should be included in that article. Given that most readers probably never heard of the Dominguez and Escalante Expedition, I suspect that being in this category would not be considered defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete, the Dominguez and Escalante Expedition article/list is currently so weak that any geo feature editor's efforts are needed there instead of populating an even weaker category.---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have assumed this category was for members of the expedition, not geographic features named by them. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:23, 25 November 2010 (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.

Fooian American Jews[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 Option B. Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Option A: Fooian American Jews to American Jews of Fooian descent
Option B: Fooian American Jews to American people of Fooian-Jewish descent
Nominator's rationale: The current naming of these categories is ambiguous: for instance, Category:Polish American Jews could include:
  • Polish people who are American Jews (most likely scope per the title, due to the absence of hyphenation, but also not what is being categorized in practice)
  • Polish-American people who are Jewish
  • Jewish people with Polish and American citizenship
  • American Jews who are of Polish descent
  • American people who are of Polish-Jewish descent
So, for clarity, I think we should rename these categories to one of two options:
Personally, I think that Option B categorizes by the characteristic that is more defining. Option A preserves the undesirable triple-intersection of nationality, descent and broad ethnicity, whereas Option B intersects only nationality and narrow ethnicity. The change would require some pages to be recategorized, but I think that the majority will be unaffected. More importantly, the change would help to clearly identify which pages are currently miscategorized (e.g., Adam Gopnik is in Category:Canadian American Jews, even though the article provides no indication that he is of Canadian or Canadian-Jewish descent). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, preferably to Option B. Really, these are just abominable categories in terms of possible ambiguities, but I agree that renaming to Option B at least inches them closer to something that could be said to be semi-defining. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow. I prefer option A of the two, but could live with B. The standard is "Booians of Fooian descent", save that the American dual natiaonality categories have not necessarily been rationalised in the same way. This one is particualrly difficult as a triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Option B, in full agreement with Good Olfactory's assessment of this situation. IZAK (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Option B, which I believe is more correct than Option A. It is also more easier to identify. Davshul (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Option 'B, per Good Ol’factory.JackJud (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2010 (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:Unrecognized accreditation associations[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. There were enough opinions expressed before the withdrawal to let this stand as a legitimate discussion result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Fully redundant with list, and, because inclusion criteria are regularly debated there (WP:OC subjective and arbitrary), list should trump category. Was proposed 20 months ago and no editors ever objected, but emptying and speedying was reverted (category has 11 members). NPOV criteria will never be available unless there is broad consensus at the list page, and there would still be no need for a redundant category even then. Reverter's objection seems to be that to upcategorize these to "school accreditors" (or to change the categorization instead to, say, org by year) blurs the distinction that remains argued at the list page, to which I respond first that the distinction is fuzzy, unagreed, and often POV; and second that if those were resolved the whole accreditors category would need breakdown by form of recognition (e.g., "CHEA International Directory") to maintain NPOV instead of treating some as "accreditors" and some with the implication "not really accreditors" when the difference is not in what they are doing but (apparently) whose approval they have to do it. See full discussions at Talk:List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations#Merger proposal and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Attempt to delete Category:Unrecognized accreditation associations. The proposal has also seemed to uncover some hidden heat for some reason, so I remind respondents to remain civil. JJB 17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC) If some editor can both source objective inclusion criteria and propose neutral names for all affected categories, a rename set would also meet this concern, but four editors have not done so yet. JJB 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I would also withdraw on the condition that some regular will covenant with me to work on the inclusion criteria and the neutral naming instead of continuing bald assertions that these issues are settled. JJB 12:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Withdraw due to evidence of WP:OWNERSHIP below, to be resolved in other fora. Please close. JJB 23:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If this is closed now, it should be documented as a "keep." This diff indicates that the proposer is not actually withdrawing his proposal, but is trying to restart the discussion at a different venue where he hopes to prevail. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The proposer did suggest the merger 20 months ago by placing comments on talk pages, but it was not a merger proposal as described at WP:Merging because not one of the pages that was supposedly proposed for merger ever had a merge template on it. I can't say whether the absence of templates was due to ignorance, disingenuousness, or malice on the part of the proposer, but the suggestion that the absence of objections indicated consensus is disingenuous, at best. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong oppose -- the nom seems to believe that it is "NPOV" to refer to the dodgy organizations in question simply as "school accreditors", ostensibly just like all the rest. But it is utterly unconvincing to see this perspective as NPOV -- the POV implicit in the nom's perspective is, rather, a market fundamentalism in which what governments do (e.g. approve some accreditation organizations and reject others) is unwarranted and illegitimate. The distinction made by this category is essential to the proper categorization of the articles in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you kindly describe the objective criteria used to demarcate the two categories, and comment on the (non)neutrality of the two terms "school accreditors" and "unrecognized accreditation associations"? Market fundamentalism appears to be a strawman, as is suggesting that I believe there are no distinctions when I have said I believe there are no objectively defined distinctions, but I have proposed some examples at the merger proposal. The POV that government entities are the only POV around and some orgs are objectively "dodgy" is also mistaken, and the nonspecific reference to government does not satisfy the objective verification criterion nor magisterially resolve the talk disputes. While the disputes remain, the category perpetuates an unbalanced POV. JJB 18:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • strong oppose - having both a category and a List article is consistent with Wikipedia policy. "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together;" WP:LISTS There are objective standards for determining membership on this list, although it will vary from country to country. In the United States, federal funding is contingent upon being accredited by an accrediting body that the government accepts as legitimate. This category could include all United States accrediting bodies not acceptable to the federal government. Similar criteria could apply in other nations. While it may be that this is implicitly having Wikipedia endorse the federal government's point of view, the Wikipedia user would benefit from presenting data on that basis because federal funding makes a significant real world difference in terms of eligibility for financial aid, etc. We can certainly cover the acrediting bodies that do not meet the federal criteria, but placing those articles in this category gives the reader fair notice that there are real world concerns. In the internet age, anyone can create the appearance of any type of institution, but NPOV requires Wikipedia to report on whether the government or significant media believe those institutions to be a hoax or legitimate. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have just illustrated the fuzziness. Reading between the lines it seems you would have a category "USDE-recognized accreditors", a category "non-USDE-recognized US accreditors", and other categories for non-US, for which the groupings seem even fuzzier. Or you might limit it to three, USDE, CHEA, and other. I am presuming (without having seen the proof) that "recognized" means "appearing in one of two lists [links] maintained respectively by the USDE and CHEA", but again there is the fuzziness, as nobody seems to want to say that straight out. Thus a compromise would be an objective breakdown that references those two lists, or any others, and subcategorizes all accreditors by what list(s) they appear on. But opposition without providing these sources is no opposition, sorry; it's unconscious pro-gov bias, and I suspect pro-US bias as well. If you see a distinction but WP can't explain the distinction coherently with reference to sources, that's an original synthesis. JJB 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Reply I would use US Department of Education as the criteria in the United States and comparable criteria outside the United States. The substance is whether the accrediting body makes a real effort to protect students and to assure educational quality. I think that having a category for so-called "accrediting associaitons" which do not perform the role that most Wikipedia users assume meets this goal. Racepacket (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for attempting to answer. As a skeptic, how do I know what the comparable criteria are, how do I know what a real effort is, how do I know what quality is and how it is assured, how do I know Wikipedia users assume anything? I'm looking for sources and links here. JJB 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for above sound reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with those opposing above. By the logic of the nominator categorizing someone as a criminal after being convicted in an independent court would also be a pro-government and/or pro-court bias. I consider such decisions valid categorization criteria that can be stated in the category, but do not have to be spelled out in its title. gidonb (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the strawman, this is not a Findlaw or Justia situation. The "delete" position was based on the merger proposal having no objection for 20 months. If someone can actually explain how to verify which items belong in the category and which don't, then we can mostly retain the extant categories and determine what they should be called. However, I said 20 months ago that no inclusion criteria are apparent on talk, and they still aren't, and the more I am told they are the more my skepticism suggests that our sources are just a couple of diploma mill watchers making lists and that there really is no accreditation criterion outside the US. As long as nobody allays this suspicion, the POV and V problem needs addressing. Whoever heard of retaining a category where you can't verify the members? JJB 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is there a specific article in this category for which you have concerns? You moved all of them out without explanation and then tried a CSD. I believe the current categorization is reasonable. Racepacket (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I stated at the merger proposal link that this is an areawide concern. The move was in accord with the principle of silent consensus, the explanation had been present for 20 months. Whatever result, the point is that the current categorization requires, and lacks, objective source-based criteria. If those criteria are not supplied by the regulars, I will need to do my own research and propose my own rename set or rearrangement proposal. JJB 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I think you may be confusing silence with consent. Did you post the question at WikiProject Universities? Racepacket (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, Nomo did. No, WP:SILENCE indicates consent; but now we are finding the new consensus. Who will start the research necessary? JJB 12:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this POV-driven proposal. The assertion that the lack of objection to the March 2009 proposal at Category talk:Unrecognized accreditation associations indicated support is extremely disingenuous -- there is very little activity in Category talk. The unrecognized nature of the entities in this category is a defining characteristic, and Wikipedia policy fully supports having both a list and a category in this kind of siutation. Moreover, it is a stretch to categorize some of the entities in the category as "school accreditors", as some of them are little more than internet scams related to scam educational institutions -- and I note that the proposer also objects (elsewhere) to the list that he says is redundant with this category. Regarding the idea that recognition is somehow irrelevant, I don't suppose the contributors who insist that unrecognized accreditors must be assumed to be as good as the ones that are recognized would want to be treated by a doctor whose credentials are from a medical school accredited by an "accreditor" like the World Association of Universities and Colleges or Accrediting Commission International or Distance Learning Council of Europe. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice -- I use exactly that example when I teach about market fundamentalism and the tendency in some quarters to get carried away with arguments about rent-seeking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Folks, it's too bad that that particular argument's a formal logic fallacy. It would have been nice if Orlady had attempted some discussion of my stated points prior to about 60 undos, immediately after this edit, of my work on the NPOV of this topic this week. That amount of reversion is usually the sign of WP:OWNERSHIP. I could also say it's "disingenuous" of Orlady to omit the fact that the proposal was on all three talkpages affected and that Orlady has made several edits to that talk, so yes I did have Orlady's WP:SILENT consensus (now changed, of course). It's a bit casuistic to edit the page repeatedly that contains the proposal and then argue the template was never placed so you (maybe) thought I wasn't serious. And it's a bit lopsided not to be at least equally casuistic about the inclusion criteria for this list. I was hoping for more rationality from this editor, not more reversion. Now I must ask, with as much restraint as possible, Orlady, how can anyone WP:VERIFY objectively why somebody should be on this list or not? As long as that question is unanswered your undos will not stand. If you do not provide a source-based answer, I will come back with my own sources next time and get a consensus for fixing the POV problems. Thank you. JJB 23:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I did make several edits to Talk:List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations since you posted your merge proposal there. You posted the merge proposal on 24 March 2009; the very next comment on that talk page (in a thread that I responded to a few days later) was 18 monthsl later, on 5 October 2010. If I noticed your "merge proposal" comment back in October, I probably assumed it was long since abandoned -- if it had been a serious proposal, I would have expected to see merge templates on the affected pages. The resounding opposition that your category deletion proposal has received on this page should indicate that you do not now have consensus for that particular proposal, regardless of the fact that no one responded to your talk page message. As for my 60 undos, most of them are related to reverting your out-of-process deletion of Accreditation mill, which was the kind of action that many Wikipedians would have taken to WP:ANI; I simply reverted the changes, but if you want to accuse me of some sort of malfeasance, I'm fully prepared to document what you have done wrong here. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the nominator now proposes to withdraw the nomination -- but given the way the discussion has proceeded here it should instead be closed in the usual way (or, if closed early, closed as WP:SNOW keep). I see no inclination among other participants here to accept the condition specified for withdrawal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2010 (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:2010 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: Withdrawn. A bulk move can not happen since the contents of the source category are all over the board. As a result, they must be manually moved. At the end, the completed structures will be included in a subcategory so the discussion here does not need to reach a conclusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2010 architecture to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2010
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is really a trial balloon for a mass rename. If you look at the introduction it is for Works of architecture completed in the year 2010. The name is ambiguous in that it should include completed in the name. The actual work is finished when the overall design is completed which can be many years before the physical work is finished. Yes, some changes may happen along the way, but these tend to be more engineering related since they figure out how to implement the work. You also run into weird cases over the definition of a work. Take the case of the Harmon Hotel the design was completed in 2006. The visible exterior was completed in 2009 to a redesign done in 2009. The building may not be completed for several more years. To say that it represents 2010 in architecture is rather misleading. With the proposed rename, the completion of these would be included in a well established tree. If someone wants to begin the series for the years when the buildings were designed, then a better named tree can be created. Another example is the Washington Monument which was finished many years after construction began. There are also cases where cathedrals have been built over hundreds of years like Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York which is still not finished but was designed in 1888 and is categorized in Category:1888 architecture. I'll contend that the cathedral should be in a redefined or better defined Category:1888 architecture and Category:1909 architecture and not in any completed category. There may be some items that are not buildings or structures, but these can be cleaned up over time. Another issue with the current system is that there is no way to categorize works of architecture that were designed, are notable and were not built. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. In doing more digging, the architecture series uses a template to define the introduction, navigation and population of the parent categories. So if consensus is to support this proposal in concept, it would probably be better to modify the template to change the introductions to removed completed and say year designed and then to create new categories for the completed buildings and structures. This will mean a lot of manual work, but it is probably the best way to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what about architecture that's (a) not "building and structures", or (b) not completed? Example: (a) I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura. 1570 architecture. (b) Volkshalle. 1940 architecture. East of Borschov 00:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this closes as approval of the change, leave a note on my talk page and I'll start making the changes. I'm not expecting the closer to start the process of making the moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' for now I've also tried to find cases where Category:(year) architecture would be useful to retain as a parent category, such as Reconciling Poetics and Ethics in Architecture Conference 2007 or ArchiLab (which does not have articles on individual years -- yet). Overall, I support the idea of creating Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2010 as a model for what to do for all years. I work a bit with the architecture categories myself and I've always found the name ridiculously imprecise. So I support the nomination, with the understanding that in some cases the source categories may need to be recreated to function as parent cats if we have non-building or structure related architecture articles for a given year. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still support but my rationale may have to change. Let me just ask the nominator something: we are talking about retaining Category:(year) architecture, but as the year the building was designed? Vegas, is that correct? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2010 (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:Tandy 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 to Category:Tandy 1000 games. However, the basketball game does not appear to be one of those, so that will just have the category deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tandy games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There exist more specific categories Category:TRS-80 games and Category:TRS-80 Color Computer games. In addition, the two articles that are currently part of Category:Tandy games seem to be falsely tagged. I couldn't verify the existence of a version of the game for any Tandy hardware (see article and MobyGames). -- I hope I did not miss something obvious. Cheers -- Make (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update This begins to make more sense. The platform in question is Tandy 1000, a not-100%-compatible variant of IBM-PC/AT. Games which support this make, were labeled accordingly, Confer scan of floppy. So this category should at least be renamed Category:Tandy 1000 games. However, I am not convinced that this level of granularity is required when categorizing video games by platform. Current practice is to tag these games as Category:DOS games. -- A similar hardware variant is IBM PCjr -- Make (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:TRS-80 Color Computer games as it appears the games listed were meant for this one. I played the Chuck Yeagar flight sim for that PC so I can attest to at least that game being tagged correctly, if improperly. I am saying redirect rather than delete because Tandy is the popular name.陣内Jinnai 03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to this, there's also Tandy color games, which are PC games that support Tandy color , that might be considered... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (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:Headlands of County XXX.[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Headlands of County Clare, Category:Headlands of County Cork, Category:Headlands of County Donegal, Category:Headlands of County Galway, Category:Headlands of County Dublin, Category:Headlands of County Mayo, Category:Headlands of County Kerry, Category:Headlands of County Louth, Category:Headlands of County Waterford, Category:Headlands of County Wexford, Category:Headlands of County Wicklow.

Propose merging all these categories into a single category for the state Category:Headlands of the Republic of Ireland.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Most of them only contain 1 article. Only one category contains more than 3 articles. Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 21. This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. Each article names the relevant county. A discussion has been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "8 Headlands by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Headland category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Headlands per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (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:Dormitory buildings[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:University and college dormitories in the United States. Category:University and college residential buildings was suggested, but these need to go in a country category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Dormitory buildings to Category:Dormitories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think this is the more common name for these. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the term has a different meaning in the UK, which is why the category and List of dormitory buildings use the word "building" to specify that they only include buildings. (The main article is just named dormitory, though.) Jafeluv (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (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:History of the Black Rock Desert[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. Articles can be weeded out of the target category if they are not appropriately categorized there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:History of the Black Rock Desert to Category:Black Rock Desert
Nominator's rationale: Merge. After removing two films that were shot there since the shooting was not historic, we are left with two articles. Deletion may be better, but I'll see where consensus runs. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge at a minimum. There's certainly no need for a history subcategory here. postdlf (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (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:Songs written by Howard Perdew[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Howard Perdew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Howard Perdew article was deleted for lack of notability. Precedent is that songs written by X categories get deleted if X doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (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:Usagi Yojimbo[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Usagi Yojimbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:33, 18 November 2010 (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:Less-lethal launchers[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:Riot guns.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Less-lethal launchers to Category:Non-lethal grenade launchers Category:Riot gun Category:Riot guns
Nominator's rationale: Consensus to move category:Less-lethal weapons to non-lethal weapons. Article also moved. Non-lethal is the WP:Common name. It keeps being brought up that non-lethal weapons cause deaths on rare occasions but that is not a valid argument. Bullet-proof glass is named the way it is even though bullet-resistant or transparent armor would be more accurate.

Some people in the last debate supported changing "launcher" to ""grenade launcher". I'm not sure where I stand on that. Marcus Qwertyus 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I'm not thrilled about the change to the parent cat, but even more so on this. "Less-lethal launcher" is the current term in use in both the industry and among military and police users. Even by just a Google search "non-" barely beats out "less-", and more of the main hits for "less-" are from within the industry. Also oppose adding the term "grenade" as some of the items shoot only non-grenade/explosive projectiles (mainly batons, rubber balls, beanbags, etc), and almost all the ones who do shoot grenades can/are used to shoot the aforementioned "kinetic" rounds. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just now realized that Less-lethal launcher redirects to Riot gun which is far, far, far, more common. Riot gun:6,460 less-lethal launcher:25 Marcus Qwertyus 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming to Category:Riot guns (note plural). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:21, 25 November 2010 (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:Kings Island attractions[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 (category has not been re-populated and there have been no objections to nominator's actions). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kings Island attractions to Category:Kings Island
Nominator's rationale: Merge. In an attempt to standardise the categorisation of amusement parks, this category should be merged in with its parent category. Despite the category being empty, speedy deletion was declined. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I declined the speedy because the category was emptied by the csd nominator: [1]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2010 (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/2010_November_18&oldid=1074805970"