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: The clear consensus is to rename all categories mentioned in this discussion. The only voice of dissent, is proven wrong by this page, which shows that he previous brand rename also led to a (speedy) rename and deletion of the main category. Some further research shows that all other related Mac OS X-categories, like for example Category:Mac OS X-only free software, which were created mostly after the rename, are soft redirects to their OS X counterparts, proving the same point. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mac OX X has not been renamed; it has been superseded. OS X still exists as OS X. Renaming to Mac OS could also create confusion with earlier ("classic") versions of the Macintosh operating system, such as Mac OS 9. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support.The current UNIX-for-Macs from Apple was, on its first release, named "Mac OS X". They later renamed it "OS X", and then renamed it "macOS". Nothing has been superseded - macOS Sierra is the current release in a line of releases dating back to Mac OS X 10.0 (and the earlier versions such as Rhapsody, Mac OS X Server 1.x, and the Mac OS X Public Beta). And we're not renaming it to "Mac OS", we're renaming it to "MacOS"; there's the classic Mac OS and there's macOS. Guy Harris (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there were already renames done from Category:Mac OS X blah blah blah to Category:OS X blah blah blah the last time Apple Marketing decided to do a rename. Guy Harris (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There was a consensus for moving OS X → macOS and I believe we should honour this and remain consistent. Per Guy Harris’ reasoning above, macOS and OS X refer to the same thing.–Totie (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. macOS is the official name now, so it should be renamed to reflect that. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2016 (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:LGBT people opposing same-sex marriage[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:relisting on current date, since as of right now this is a deadlocked stale discussion that's unlikely to attract any new input. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We usually don't categorize people by their opinion on one particular subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category is so titled so vaguely as to be useless. Does it refer to any LGBT people who ever expressed opposition to same-sex marriage in any context or only to those who actively continue to oppose it or what? It's not clear. In looking over the category's articles, I see two subjects that probably don't even meet the broader standard. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is a fair comparison. Presumably "anti-movement" is more defining for a person than "anti-single-issue". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons listed by Jim Michael. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here isn't that it's an "oppose" category; it's that people are in here for too many wildly different reasons to be usefully grouped together on that basis. Among the six people categorized here, we have six completely different rationales for inclusion, not all of which qualify as actual opposition — Bindel wants government to get out of the marriage biz entirely, so that all couples whether OS or SS would be treated equally under the umbrella of civil partnership instead of marriage; Coburn opposed it on community safety grounds, arguing that it exacerbates homophobia from the anti-SS activists; Jordan personally supports it, but voted against Hawaii's law on the grounds that she perceived her constituents to be opposed; Pierce argued against Britain's law on the grounds that the existing civil partnerships law was already enough; Sycamore just thinks LGBT people have more urgent issues to worry about; and Yiannopoulos is the only one here whose reasoning against SSM ever resembled actual opposition to the fundamental principle of LGBT relationship recognition, rather than simply quibbling with its form or its timing. Which means we've got five people here for whom it doesn't really apply ("we should move away from civil marriage actually being a thing at all for anyone", "this is not the right time for this yet", "this is not a priority", "we already effectively have all the same rights anyway" and/or "I have to put my constituents ahead of my personal views" are not the same argument as "this is an objectively bad thing that should never happen at all"), and zero people who are in here for the same reason as anybody else — and that's just not a very WP:DEFINING basis for a category that lumps them together as having anything in common with each other. Also, I'm not sure I get why this happened at all — why did the nominator create the category, file the articles in it, and then immediately list his own creation for CFD just four minutes later? What's the point of creating a brand new category just to list it for deletion right away? Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created it as a split from the parent Category:LGBT opposition to same-sex marriage, since individual LGBT people's arguments for opposition (or whatever related opinion) cannot be taken as LGBT opposition in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your strategy was to immediately shift them into a new subcategory you were then going to immediately list for deletion, instead of just removing them from the inappropriate original category like almost anybody else would have? That doesn't really make it any more understandable. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marco, why did you nominate the category for deletion four minutes after you created it? Jim Michael (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure that plainly removing the category from the articles would be appropriate, therefore initiated the discussion. I'm willing to accept the possible outcome of the discussion that the subcategory as I created it is appropriate after all (although that's not what I'm proposing). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you should have started a discussion on the talk page of the parent cat in regard to who should be included in it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael's right...if that's what you wanted to do, you should have initiated a discussion, perhaps via RFC, on the category's talk page rather than creating a new category you're intending to immediately nominate for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Typhoons/Hurricanes are technically both tropical cyclones, with hurricane being the predominant term in the United States, as can be seen by Category:Hurricanes in the United States by state. I see no reason typhoons can't be added to the Hurricanes in Alaska category, which this category is a subcategory of. At the very least, they should be merged as Category:Tropical cyclones in Alaska. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Makes sense.[1]Category:Hurricanes in Alaska makes the most sense, since that's what they're called if they occur there. Category:Tropical cyclones in Alaska at least makes some sense, since many sources (and our own article) indicate that "tropical cyclone" is the generic, non-location-specific term. Category:Typhoons in Alaska just makes no sense at all. In reassessing this per Jason Rees's remarks below, I'm changing my !vote to Oppose. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very very strange that Typhoons in Alaska does not make sense when you consider that most storms to have impacted the state were in fact typhoons. The link you provide also states nothing about typhoons in Alaska being named hurricanes and I for one would be shocked and very surprised if the warning centers for the Western Pacific, suddenly started calling a typhoon a hurricane when it was in the Western Pacific just because it was impacting Alaska which starts with Attu Island at 172E.Jason Rees (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoons in Alaska does make sense since most systems that affect Alaska were actually typhoons and not hurricanes at their prime. I for one would be shocked and very surprised if the warning centers for the Western Pacific, suddenly started calling a typhoon a hurricane when it was in the Western Pacific just because it was impacting Alaska which starts with Attu Island at 172E.Jason Rees (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the two sources I checked (one of them linked above) and have struck my support for the proposed merge. Thanks for following up. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Or reverse merge: obviously the same thing. My query is whether typhoons should not be used for Pacific storms and hurricane for Atlantic ones. However I am not an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms are used for Pacific storms with the dividng line being 180E commonly referred to as the dateline.Jason Rees (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Category:Hurricanes in Alaska, or to Category:Tropical cyclones in Alaska per nom's alternate suggestion if people are really going to quibble over catting a typhoon as a hurricane. The only real difference between a typhoon and a hurricane is whether it formed in the Atlantic or the Pacific, and even then it has to form in the Asian part of the Pacific to be a typhoon, and is still called a hurricane if it forms in the North American part — which is why most of the storms that have hit Alaska are titled as hurricanes. They aren't actually different things, just different naming coventions for the same thing, and accordingly we don't need two separate typhoon vs. hurricane categories for the same state just because it's had some storms named both ways. Merging them both to a compromise term to forestall editwarring over the typhoon vs. hurricane issue is probably the best solution — but we definitely don't need two parallel categories for the same thing just because some of them were named differently than others were. Another alternative: since Alaska has never actually had a direct hit from a storm that was still classified as a hurricane or a typhoon by the time it got there, but rather every storm that's ever made it that far has been a remnant, perhaps merging them both to a new category with the word "remnants" in it might be an option as well. As important as parallelism of category naming can be, it's not an overarching rule that has to be followed even if it sets up unnecessary "two categories for the same concept" hairsplits like this. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – I also agree that a merge makes sense here. United States Man (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While I feel that a merger is in order, I disagree that it should be under the hurricane tag, since I believe it is more common for typhoon remnants to impact Alaska.Jason Rees (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the number of articles that are actually filed in the respective categories (four hurricanes to one typhoon), it's not at all clear that your belief is actually correct. Not all Pacific Ocean storms are classed as typhoons rather than hurricanes; it's a typhoon only if it forms on the Asian side of the International Date Line, and still a hurricane if it forms on the North American side, and North American storms are much more likely to reach Alaska than Asian ones are. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the main tropical cyclone editors for the region, I would be very curious to know what you are basing your assertion that Pacific hurricanes are much more likely to hit Alaska. Especially since the NOAA historical tracks tool shows that most tropical cyclones hitting Attu or Amchitka Island in Alaska are recurvers from the Western Pacific. I will also note that Dr Jeff Masters who runs an extremely well repected blog last year authored a blog entry called "ex Hurricane Oho Where Few Hurricanes Have Gone Before: Alaska which shows that only 4 ex-hurricanes have ever affected Alaska. I will conclude by noting that there is almost double the amount of Pacific typhoons then Pacific hurricanes in an average year and quite a few of them recurve towards the America's and impact Alaska along the way. Jason Rees (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Number of articles in the hurricanes category: 4: Number of articles in the typhoons category: 1. Not my responsibility to have possessed any "background" knowledge on the subject beyond what's right there in the pages as written, or to have psychically guessed that you have any special expertise in the subject if you're not using that expertise to populate the categories. So if you want me to change my opinion, then make the number of articles in the respective categories correspond to your claim that typhoons are more common than hurricanes are — if and when the typhoons category has more articles in it than the hurricanes category does, I might reconsider my view, but as long as the balance of articles in the categories is 4-1 in favour of hurricanes, that's the only basis on which I can formulate an opinion one way or the other. Have a nice day. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While you are entitled to formulate your opinon anyway you wish, I strongly disagree that you should be citing or using Wikipedia above the external sources i have provided to back up my view. Also while I am flattered to be called an expert in tropical cyclone - I am just an amateur who has done a lot of research on them.Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised there aren't more storms in those two categories. Anyway, it makes sense to merge the two to Category:Tropical cyclones in Alaska based on a combination of Jason Rees' bit about how many typhoons have affected Alaska and what Ks0stm said about "hurricane" being in more common usage in the United States. It may misrepresent the way people in the United States at large refer to the storms to call the category "Typhoons in Alaska," and most of the storms weren't hurricanes, so tropical cyclone seems like the best possible middle ground. I'd keep it a subcategory of Category:Hurricanes in the United States by state, though. Dustin(talk) 20:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political party alliances in Taiwan[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is no any really political alliances in Taiwan. Please see zh:泛藍 and zh:泛綠 for more details, thank you. UU (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete considering there are only two such coalitions, this category is WP:SMALLCAT. --Prisencolin (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category has only 1 entry. Yes there are more entertainers in the Bronx but such categories are titled Actors, Musicians, Singers, Television personalities etc and not the generic 'Entertainers'. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents, but perhaps we should be seeking to split entertainers into more specific categories - actors, musicians, comics, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete this cat, but create more specific cats such as Category:Actors from the Bronx instead? Jim Michael (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate as mentioned above. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentScott La Rock, which is on my watchlist, was recently added to this category in response to this CFD. First of all, given the crucial role that the South Bronx played in the early history of hip hop music, I would believe Category:Rappers from the Bronx to far better fit within WP:CATDEF than this category, other generalized occupation-related categories or Category:Rappers from New York City, the latter of which is just a little too large. Second, the categorization of La Rock's article is far too heavily weighted towards music-related categories. An important part of the story of the formation of Boogie Down Productions was that of social worker La Rock meeting aspiring rapper KRS-One in the homeless shelter where the latter was living. KRS has recorded songs and otherwise spoken about living in shelters and engaging in rap battles there and how this attracted La Rock's attention. That article doesn't include any categorization related to social workers. It appears that the categorization regulars are more interested in enforcing some sort of "one size fits all" categorization scheme without regard for relevance, and in further enforcing the reputation we've developed of being a fanboy exercise rather than any sort of credible information resource. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With people like Jennifer Lopez the amount of overlap if we split into rappers, singers, actors etc would be a lot, I think this broad category is the best way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 95 articles in this cat, so it being underpopulated is no longer a valid argument. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably populated category, with scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2016 (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.
