Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 5

< May 4	May 6 >

May 5[edit]

Category:Battles of the Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Western Virginia Campaign. (As far as names go, the entire tree is a bit of a mess, it appears, and could probably benefit from some discussion. There were also some comments made in the discussion that were not appropriate—please remember to discuss things cordially.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Battles and Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War to Category:Battles of the Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War

Nominator's Rationale: Speedy C2B per Categories:Category:Battles of the Operations to Control Missouri..., Battles of the Operations against Baton Rouge..., Battles of the Operations North of Boston Mountains..., et al. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Speedy nomination that was discussed. --Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the contents of the box, this nomination is different from any previous Speedy nomination (none of them were for changing "and" to "of the". 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy nomination

Category:Battles and Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War to Category:Operations in Western Virginia – C2D: Operations in Western Virginia 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this one should be Category:Western Virginia Campaign per Western Virginia Campaign.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you elaborate why you would think that, as the WV Campaign was just a short period during the war, while the scope of the existing category is for all Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War (not juat one campaign). Implementing your thought would mistakenly reduce the scope of the category. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am confused. All the contents are part of the 1861 Western Virginia Campaign, so the category should be calledCategory:Western Virginia Campaign. There's nothing here from the later parts of the war.--Mike Selinker(talk) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So...objection? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) ||||| Is this question some kind of joke or other attempt at humor? The poster's Comment above clearly supports the nomination (opposes the change in scope): "I still don't agree that we should be changing the name from what the WP main article is", which simply restates the speedy reason for this nomination: "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article" 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If I have to. The nominator and I both want this renamed, but we disagree as to what.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, now I'm really confused. Today, the nominator changed Operations in Western Virginia from a redirect to a short article. But there's no campaign called "The Operations in Western Virginia." There is a campaign called the Western Virginia Campaign. I'm pretty sure C2D doesn't apply when you invent the article in the middle of the nomination, but maybe I don't understand the nominator's intent. Can you clarify?--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To help resolve the claimed confusion (I doubt he actually has any) I marked the category as underpopulated and started adding WV operations since, as mentioned by the nominator, there are many WP articles for military engagements in this area of operationsafter the Western Virginia Campaign, which only had 8 (more operations after than during). The article is quite clear about "the many later engagements in Western Virginia" and in his opposition for several May 3 speedy nominations, the poster who alleges confusion specifically claims that a change of scope is improper, so he knows--without confusion--that his thought to reduce the scope significantly is invalid and this speedy nomination meets C2D (probably why he hasn't yet stated opposition to it). What the feigned confused wants is a different category with a different scope, and instead of just creating it--he's trying to throw out a different valid category (which is comparable to several other "Operations in North Alabama", etc. categories he identifies should be kept). Also, he claims the nominated category is invalid because it is "no category" but again, other "Middle Tennessee Operations", etc categories aren't for campaigns and he thinks they're OK. And he claims that the article page created in 2010 (the template was created in 2004, the battles were in 1863, and have been described verbatim for years at WP) was now "invented" 2 years later? This type of dishonesty needs to be stopped and is the sort that gives WP a bad name. How much similarly false BS has he posted in articles? 30 SW (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, but did you really need to expose the confused's bad faith? I can understand that he no longer deserved the assumption of it, but this rename was going to go regardless of whether by this speedy nomination or a subsequent nomination/creation. Hopefully he'll stop the BS--I think the problem is a lack of him actually applying critical thinking before posting (maybe he hasn't that skill?). Also, I noticed your edits populating the category were immediately preceded by an IP user doing the same-- was that you before logging-in? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there was no need for any of that venom. I was trying to find out why the nominator wanted something that didn't appear to be merited by the contents of the category. I didn't assume any bad faith, and I would appreciate it if you do so as well. I'm going to officially oppose this now, because now User 30 SW has filled the category with articles that weren't there before. This Speedy nomination seems like it can't proceed now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original purpose of this category was for the 1861 campaign, not for any Civil War battle which occured in West Virginia. As I see it now, the category could just as well be merged into the West Virginia in the ACW category. Perhaps the best solution would be to par it down to the original content and rename it to "1861 Western Viriginia campaign". Wild Wolf (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Battles of the Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War as nominated since the speedy naming convention applies for the convention used for a multitude of ... of the Operations... categories and the campaign battles were only part of the Operations in Western Virginia (there were lots of WV operations that weren't battles such as the raids throught the war). 30 SW (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Western Virginia Campaign and purge. The article Operations in Western Virginia was changed from a redirect just a couple days ago, and another editor added a bunch of articles to this category. The article Western Virginia Campaign is the stronger match for a category, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Western Virginia Campaign doesn't make sense, as there were more Operations in Western Virginia after the 1861 Western Virginia Campaign than during (and User:Mike Selinker admits knowing this info that's clearly stated in the article). So "Stronger match" is a completely ridiculous claim (as is the recommendation to delete the parent category!), and he can just create the different (smaller) campaign category 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, chill. I have no beef with you, and you really have no beef with me. We just disagree, that's all. Please stop attacking my supposed motives, and don't edit my !vote to become a separate nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, before I was aware of this discussion, I reverted Operations in Western Virginia back to the redirect. "Operations in Western Virginia" covers a very specific campaign as described by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm. There are other articles still linking to Operations in Western Virginia and changing from a redirect to an unrelated article broks the existing wikilinks. The article that was created is perhaps describing "Stoneman's Raid into Southwest Virginia", but in any case it is unrelated to the 1861 "Operations in Western Virginia" campaign. Mojoworker (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Western Virginia Campaign and remove articles not related to the 1861 campaign. The category was intended for the 1861 campaign and should be renamed as such. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This "intended" claim is completely unsupported -- the multitude of ... Operations at Foo in the American Civil War categories are clearly for all of the operations, not just a few months during the war. 30 SW (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure what you are arguing here. ACW campaigns were limited in duration to a few months in a particular state or area of the country. So limiting this category to the battles of the 1861 Western Virginia Campaign would be a good fit. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Wild Wolf is saying is that the article Operations in Western Virginia (which redirects to Western Virginia Campaign) describes a very specific campaign as defined by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm Mojoworker (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose creation of Category:Western Virginia Campaign since creation of that different category would be WP:OVERCAT (there is a Template that already lists the battles of the campaign). 30 SW (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose outright deletion of Category:Battles and Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War veiled as a rename recommendation, which would eliminate a valid, broad, category. 30 SW (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose creation of both Category:Western Virginia Campaign and~~ Rename to Category:Battles of the Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War and purge ~~as confusing~~ since the existing articles Western Virginia Campaign and Operations in Western Virginia describe a very specific campaign as defined by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm unless the categories are only used for battles in that campaign. Mojoworker (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly what I'm proposing. Nothing in this category except Philippi, Rich Mountain, Kessler's Cross Lanes, Carnifex Ferry, Cheat Mountain, Greenbrier River, and Camp Allegheny. That's all that was in the category before editors filled it with other battles during the Speedy nomination process.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, I don't have a strong preference for either category name as long as they only describe the battles that were part of that specific 1861 campaign and are not a dumping ground for anything that happened to occur in the western part of Virginia during the war. It's important to understand what a Military campaign is and is not. It is not merely a list of battles. To over simplify, a campaign is strategic while a battle is tactical. These campaign lists were developed as they were for a reason, by professional historians, and changing them to be grouped, for example, geographically with other battles that are part of a different campaign, loses context and conflates campaigns which may have been carried out in different years and planned by different commanders. Perhaps part of the problem is that the same campaign is being described two different ways. Western Virginia Campaign was created last August and is synonymous with Operations in Western Virginia. However, Template:Campaignbox Operations in Western Virginia has been around since 2004, and is the name used by CWSAC, so I'd perhaps give a slight preference to that version – and perhaps the Western Virginia Campaign article should become the redirect to Operations in Western Virginia instead of the other way around as it is currently. Mojoworker (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Battles of the American Civil War in West Virginia. Battle is ambiguous enough to cover any sort of military campaign, whether it happened in one day or over a month.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign name is "Operations in Western Virginia" and describes a very specific campaign as defined by professional historians of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service at http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm and is not just a geographic category of battles that happened to be in West Virginia. Mojoworker (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Western Virginia Campaign. If it was created for the battles of this campaign, then it should be renamed for the Western Virginia campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.224.171 (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment were the operations within the modern boundaries of Virginia or of West Virginia? I think the name is needlessly confusing at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation at that time does make things confusing – in part because these battles occurred in what at that time was Virginia, but was in the process of becoming West Virginia. On June 19, 1861, at the Second Wheeling Convention, delegates from western Virginia formed the Unionist "Restored government of Virginia" opposed to the secessionist government in Richmond and West Virginia became the 35th U.S. state on June 20, 1863. Mojoworker (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm looking over the parent: Category:Campaigns of the Main Eastern Theater of the American Civil War. I think part of the problem here could be that it seems (to me) that the subcats could be seen as running afoul of "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." (from WP:NCCAT). That, and the (mis-?)interpretation of what "operations" or "campaign" mean (are defines as) in this context. If these are dealt with/resolved, I'd be content to see this renamed to Category:Western Virginia Campaign, per the article Western Virginia Campaign, and to match other cats in the parent that I noted above. - jc37 09:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two proposals?[edit]

Looks like there are two competing proposals in this discussion. One group wants to create a category for all ACW battles in West Virginia, while the other (including myself) want to limit this category to the 1861 campaign and rename the category to "Western Virginia Campaign". Wild Wolf (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2012 (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:Ottoman period in the history of Libya[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 (although there is really no content to merge). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ottoman period in the history of Libya to Category:Ottoman Tripolitania

Nominator's rationale: Ottoman Tripolitania is a category covering the subject adequately. There is no need for a category for the same thing, with a different name. It makes no sense to categorize Ottoman history by present day borders. --FocalPoint (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Ottoman province of Tripolitania included only small part of present-day Libya, check the map: http://ottomanempire4.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ottoman_provinces_of_present_day_libyapng.png Other two historical provinces (Fezzan and Cyrenaica) are clearly not covered by "Ottoman Tripolitania" category. PANONIAN 08:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support but also upmerge for the other Ottoman Provinces of what is now Libya and placement of articles in the relevant province.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category only contains Category:Ottoman Tripolitania and the redirect Ottoman period in the history of Libya, which certainly doesn't seem to belong in the Ottoman Tripolitania category. What content is there to merge? Jafeluv (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking at [1] (note the parent cats), and the edit histories of both the nommed and target cats leads me to think that this all is due to a recent set of WP:BOLD changes by User:PANONIAN, presumably for the reasons they outlined above. As this is clearly opposed, this should be reverted,, with the hope for more discussion in order to gain consensus. - jc37 09:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undo the split from Category:Ottoman Tripolitania, and Delete (Essentially "merge" per nom.) - jc37 09:32, 20 May 2012 (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:Wristwatch computers[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wristwatch computers to Category:Smartwatches

Nominator's rationale: To match the article smartwatch (formerly wristwatch computer). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:22, 5 May 2012 (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:models by sexuality[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 all - feel free to immediately nominate the target for deletion at editorial discretion. - jc37 11:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lesbian models to Category:LGBT models

Propose merging Category:Gay models to Category:LGBT models

Propose merging Category:Bisexual models to Category:LGBT models

Nominator's rationale: Once again this is overcategorization. All of these models should be somewhere in Category:Female models or Category:Male models, so there isn't a need for gender specifics here - so no need for gay/lesbian/bisexual; their gender can be inferred from their presence in male/female categories. I'm not nominating Category:Transgender and transsexual models because I think there *is* a reason why that category is important (see for example this [2] KarlB (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate I agree the trans one is especially significant but it seems weird to keep the trans split off and lump all the rest in together.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment actually I disagree, I don't think it's weird; there are a couple of categories where TS/TG are called out separately, I think modeling is actually a great example because in modeling it seems your sexual preferences are less important (except in porn...) while your your gender and sex is - for example why does it matter if supermodel X is bisexual or lesbian? How does that impact her career? (added later - I meant - how is lesbian vs bi defining (instead of just knowing that she's queer) --KarlB (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment It can be seen as just as taboo or potentially career destructive as the straight market is still the largest target.[3]Amber Rose:"I have been modeling for over nine years now and almost every model I've met working was bisexual or bi-curious but you didn’t talk about it—it stayed behind closed doors. Being known as a bisexual model, let alone a lesbian model is completely taboo and I struggled with being outted for years. I was afraid that my bookings would stop and my career as I know it would come to an end."RafikiSykes (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the suggestion is to merge up to LGBT. So, it will still be obvious that these people are either L,G, or B. The question is, is differentiation needed, for example between B and L? You note what she says: "almost every model I've met was bi-sexual or bi-curious" --KarlB (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have to admit that I am not even convinced that in modeling the sexual orientation of the person is of issue. I think we have gone over-board in sexual orientation categories. At least some of them have no relevance to the profession at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to agree that this is a case where a category for "LGBT occupation" is probably not necessary at all, let alone subdividing it into separate lesbian, bi and gay categories. The intersection of the two isn't particularly defining, as there isn't a particular phenomenon of LGBT modelling that's in any meaningful way distinct from the non-LGBT kind, which is the criterion normally used to determine the validity or invalidity of such a category — for example, Category:LGBT writers is justified by the fact that LGBT literature is a distinct cultural and literary phenomenon in its own right, and not solely by the fact that there are writers who happen to be LGBT. So for every person here, simple categorization within Category:LGBT people by nationality, with no dedicated category for "LGBT models", should be more than sufficient. Delete all (including the parent.) Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and standardised convention. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 11 May 2012 (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.