Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 18

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

November 18[edit]

Category:Restrooms[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 Category:Restrooms to Category:Public toilets; no consensus on Category:Restrooms in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Restrooms to Category:Public toilets
Propose renaming Category:Restrooms in the United States to Category:Public toilets in the United States
Nominator's rationale: The cat main link for Washroom on the page -- which doesn't even match the category -- is simply a redirect to the parent article Public toilet, which expressly includes all manner of non-private bathrooms. As for the U.S. subcategory, all of its current contents are for "comfort stations" but that is being used in this case as an official title or euphemism for public toilet, it seems to me. Please see November 19 for follow up Cfd, related to this one, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the first, Oppose on the second per WP:ENGVAR. "Public toilet" is never used in the United States (or is, at least, extremely rare. If you ask for a "public toilet" or "washroom" you'll get a blank look, but if you ask where the "restroom" is you'll be pointed straight to the room with the sink, paper towels, and toilet. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Washroom is used in the United States, although its not too common. Neutralitytalk 07:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both as proposed. Regarding Bushranger's objection, I disagree about "public toilet" resulting in blank looks even asking for the restroom is a safer bet. But I also think calling the Longmire Campground Comfort Stations a "restroom" is awkward since it's about the building more than the actual room. In fact most articles in the category use the terms "toilet" and "public toilet". Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Restroom" can refer to the building too; "Comfort Station" is just a euphemism. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that the parent article does state that "restroom" is the preferred term in the U.S. I can understand if consensus is to retain that term for the U.S. subcategory. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the other hand, I'm sure few of us in the English-speaking world ask, "where's the public toilet?" We all use some variety of euphemism or shorter name, per simply "toilet." So at least the parent article Public toilet has the advantage of unambiguously describing what the function is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the first; neutral on the second. I'm always a bit puzzled about this whole "restroom" and "bathroom" thing. I don't use public toilets to have a rest or a bath in and I doubt whether many other people do either. However, as Americans seem to be prudish in this regard, under WP:ENGVAR it may be a good idea to keep the terminology for those in the United States (although, like Pichpich I can't believe that an American wouldn't be able to work out what a public toilet was!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Restroom" is another one of those euphemisms we so love to use to avoid saying we're going to do "number two". But it's a rather more established one than the aforementioned "comfort station". (At least neither is as bad as the rubbish collectors insisting on being called "garbologists"...) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tonight Jon Stewart used the phrase "not enough public toilet facilities in downtown New York" while talking about Occupy Wall Street. Yeah, yeah I'm fully aware this argument carries pretty close to zero weight. Pichpich (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both. Restroom, while euphemistic is well understood on both sides of the pond. Public toilet, public conveniences, public facilities, public lavatories, etc. seem more limited in usage. Public toilet seems worst among them as it has the connotation of the public urinals one finds on the streets of Paris or Amsterdam, where you go whilst watching the world go by. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. Where are you getting that idea from? And "restroom" is not well-understood either, not in Britain at least. If used at all, it would be understood as somewhere in a place of work that the staff go to take their breaks and eat their lunch, which is in fact the logical meaning. In fact, in every European country I've visited (and that's quite a few of them) everyone knows exactly what a public toilet is. In most countries, public toilets are signposted clearly and unequivocally as "WCs" or "Toilets", or the local-language equivalent, never as "restrooms". If asking for the toilet, we Europeans usually say, oddly enough, "where's the toilet?" It seems to be only in America that they're a bit confused, probably because saying exactly what you're looking for there seems to be looked on as rather embarrassing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. Public toilet is what is meant, and is generally understood. 'Public lavatory' would be better English; but most foreigners do not understand the word 'lavatory'. 'Rest room' is an American euphemism, which (to Americans) implies a public toilet; I do not think it has that implication in Europe. If somebody had asked me last week at work, where the rest room was, I would probably have suggested the coffee-shop. This would not have been helpful, if he/she had wanted to go to the lavatory.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2011 (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:San Diego Padres former minor league affiliates[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 close (C2C merge/move). The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:San Diego Padres former minor league affiliates to Category:Former San Diego Padres minor league affiliates
Nominator's rationale: These categories cover the exact same subject. I propose merging the smaller of the two into the larger.- William 18:17, 18 November 2011 (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:Cost and management accountant[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 per no objections. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Cost and management accountant to Category:Management accounting
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The precise purpose of this category is unclear; most pages in it are professional associations for qualified management accountants, and are each already categorised in category:Professional accountancy bodies. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2011 (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:Seismological history[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 for now to Category:Seismic history. Given the nature of the discussion, I think it would be fine if someone wanted to nominate Category:Seismic history immediately for further discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Seismological history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete for a lot of reasons!! It had one entry (Seismicity in Japan) which I am having moved to Earthquakes in Japan. Not only does the title not match convention but the grammar does not seem correct. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please do not empty categories that are at or going to be at CfD out of process. I have restored the article to the cat pending the CfD outcome. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it says, right on the front page of CfD, Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I emptied it before putting it up for deletion!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you should have tagged it with CSD C1. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CSD only applies if it has been empty for four days. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nifty thing about the C1 tag is that you can place it on a category at any time - but it won't become visible, and listed in the speedy-deletion-candidate lists, until four days after emptying has passed. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, that is nifty. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alan is removing any articles put in this category to make sure that it is a blank category. I do not think this is appropriate.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Alan, please stop - we just discussed this above. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply removing articles that are not appropriate to the topic of seismological history that were added after this CfD was initiated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly legitimate to expand articles proposed for deletion during the deletion discussion. Similarly it is legitimate to put articles that probably belong in a category into that category during a deletion discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I removed the articles because they were not appropriate for the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Others believe they are fully appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I am struggling to understand why editors are equating earthquakes with seismology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Liefting, I agree that you should let people modify this page as they see fit until the decision is made. Whatever your real intention, it looks as if you are interfering with attempts to save the category. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My real intention is to get rid of the category (and incrementally improve WP) and you will notice that I no longer removing the inappropriate articles from the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there ought to be a category for putting articles on seismological history in. The problem is that articles on seismological history have not been put in this category. It is a useful category - and if deleted, will only end up being recreated.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I challenge you to find articles about the history of seismology - i.e. the scientific study of earthquakes. Also, to assume that it will be recreated if deleted is just that - an assumption - and has no place in a deletion discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion A vlaid encyclopedic category which should be filled with scores of articles asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree - the name is not "valid" and there are no suitable articles for it (as mentioned above). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Must you hound every comment here? Geez.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every comment. I see nothing wrong in replying to !votes on a CfD that I initiated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this category is to be kept, it needs a clear statement of its purpose and scope in the lead (see, for example, the lead in Category:Earthquakes). Also, it shouldn't be redundant - "seismic" generally refers to earthquakes, there are already a lot of relevant categories in Category:Earthquakes. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, but I think a lot of readers may currently be looking for the seismic history of Japan, and whenever an earthquake occurs they'll be interested in the seismic history of the affected countries. How best to serve that need? Categories aren't the best search start point. For example, a Google search of seismic history Turkey doesn't bring up List of earthquakes in Turkey till the third page. [2]. Maybe as a start we could have a redirect of Seismic history to the Lists of earthquakes article. Novickas (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your redirect is a big help, as it makes finding the information much easier. As a result, there is now less need for this category at the present time. Alan Liefting appears to be right in saying that there are articles on the history of earthquakes and tsunamis, but not so obviously on the history of the study of earthquakes and tsunamis. I no longer mind if Category:Seismological history is deleted at this time. I still think that it will be recreated one day - that day will be when there are articles or redirects on the history of the study of earthquakes. So if the category is deleted now, it should be without prejudice to its future recreation, either as 'Seismological history' or 'History of Seismology'.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a History of seismology article would be nice. Novickas (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: This category does not serve any purpose that is not already served by Category:Lists of earthquakes. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • My feelings about this are not as strong as yours. I prefer lists myself, but Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (a guideline) says they are complementary. You would oppose the existence of the category if it were used in the various lists of earthquakes articles? I see it as a useful navigational aid - one could work one's way thru Category:Earthquakes for the same info, but the existing list articles organize the info so nicely. Novickas (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the lack of clarity. I appreciate the redirect. But after re-reading the guideline (have probably read it before but forgotten how it went), I think that both lists-of-earthquakes articles and a category could reasonably be classified as Seismic history and can co-exist, since the guideline says it’s OK if lists and categories are redundant. I agree that this particular category ought to be deleted, because it can’t AFAICT just be renamed. (I also want to note that the term “Seismological history” is sometimes used to describe what I would rather see called Seismic history. This Google scholar search turns up about 100 uses of seismological history, the first page shows some journals using it [3]. Just that seismic history gets more Gscholar results [4], which is why I see it as more correct.) But I also support its speedy recreation as Category:Seismic history and repopulation with its current content, along with the various list articles that aren’t in it now. As far as I know, Earthquakes in Japan is the only current non-list article that could be put in this category. But we do have a lot of list articles that could be in this replacement category, and the guideline says it’s OK if lists and categories cover the same sets of articles. Novickas (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's what I'm thinking (not that I would know how to do that). Although we currently have only one seismic history article that isn't a list, we may have more sometime. Novickas (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be a category that is populated with earth shattering historical events... But seriously, it is not a category that would attract many pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:43, 5 December 2011 (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:USS Oklahoma (BB-37)[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: Upmerge both to Category:Nevada class battleships. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:USS Oklahoma (BB-37) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:USS Nevada (BB-36) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains two articles. I can't imagine that it's going to get any larger, hence WP:OC#SMALL comes into consideration. Maybe "by definition" this category will not be limited, but in practical terms it will be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2011 (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:States and territories established in yyyy, Category:States and territories disestablished in yyyy[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: do not delete. Nothing here was tagged, so this can't even be considered a proper test of the merits of the categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:States and territories established in 2879 BC, Category:States and territories established in 2500 BC, Category:States and territories established in 1600 BC, Category:States and territories established in 1200 BC, Category:States and territories established in 1070 BC, ... etc (there are so many of them that I can't list them all), up to Category:States and territories established in 1699
Category:States and territories disestablished in 375 BC, Category:States and territories disestablished in 256 BC, Category:States and territories disestablished in 23, Category:States and territories disestablished in 40, Category:States and territories disestablished in 46, ..., up to Category:States and territories disestablished in 1698
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are all very small categories, with no potential for growth. Before the 17th century, in each year there are only one or two countries established or disestablished. A better way is to sort them by decade or century, instead of by year. --Ideal gas equation (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (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/2011_November_18&oldid=1074808070"