Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10[edit]

Category:Alt.Culture[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, for all topics covered in a particular alt-culture handbook, appears to me to be the sort of overcategorisation described in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published list. Cheers, gnu57 22:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry if this isn't the correct format, but I'd argue that this was an important book and that recording the items it covers would be of great interest to researchers of the period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feelinglistless (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate, promotional. Neutralitytalk 23:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The aim seems to be "topics covered in an allegedly comprehensive encyclopedia about the 90s", suggesting that our existing categories on the events and culture of the 90s are more than sufficient. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate and non-defining. Trivialist (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No clear definition, at least not on Wikipedia. The category could have helped its own case if a main article existed to establish notability and define the topic. Ikluft (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It appears to be about the contents of a book. WP is not the right place to have an index to a NN book, but that seems to be the purpose. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pretty much all of the above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:35, 16 November 2019 (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:Nazi war criminals released early from prison[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. A list of the current contents can be found on the talk page, in case anyone is interested in creating a list article (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. One would expect the release date as one of the columns in a List of convicted Nazi war criminals if existing. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly listify in the hope that someone will provide the other columns needed. Certainly do not keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This wouldn't qualify for listification, I don't think, since "being a Nazi and also being released early [under what definitional criteria?] from prison" isn't even a sensible intersection for a list. If there's an encyclopedic "thing" here, it should probably be covered in prose in an article on prosecution of Nazi war criminals, with citations to secondary sources that have already determined and analyzed some kind of early-release bias[es] in particular jurisdictions. WP saying on its own that something was "early" is WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:37, 16 November 2019 (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:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 22#Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country

Parishes in Diocese of Killaloe[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 per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Nominator's rationale To correct bad grammar. To standardise with with dioceses in Ireland (e.g. Category:Parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Waterford and Lismore). Note: I have pruned all articles that were just places in the diocese and which did not contain substantial material pertaining to the parish itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (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:CP/M issues[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:CP/M variants. MER-C 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For similar reasons to my nomination of Category:DOS issues: "issues" is non-standard terminology for talking about editions/releases/versions of software, in computing "issues" normally means problems/difficulties/things going wrong. What this category actually seems to contain, is variants, editions and descendants of CP/M. So something like "CP/M variants and descendants" might be a better name. SJK (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category is meant to include entries for any kind of operating system offering some form of CP/M API to run CP/M and related programs. Terms like "editions" or "releases" would only be applicable to operating systems developed by Digital Research (and successors such as Novell), the originator of CP/M, whereas "issues" also includes third-party implementations. "Versions" could mean either release versions or BDOS API level versions. "Variants" would not include the original CP/M. "Descendants" would not include the original CP/M either, but on the other hand also include operating systems such as DR DOS, which are source-level successors of CP/M-86 and Concurrent DOS, but (in contrast to Concurrent DOS and Multiuser DOS) have CP/M API compatibility removed from the kernel and which therefore do not belong into this category. Also, the suggested alternative would be longer than necessary and inconsistent with the similarly named category "Category:DOS issues".
While the term "issue" is also used in the meaning described by the nominator, it is also perfectly standard vocabulary to describe exactly what this category is meant to include. I am not aware of another term better describing what should be included in this category. It was carefully chosen for this purpose and has been stable for eight years. I see this nomination as an unnecessary attempt to fix something that isn't broken. Therefore "Keep".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that "issues" is "perfectly standard vocabulary" in this context. In the context of computer software, the term is almost never used in the sense in which it is being used here. It is used in a similar way in other contexts, such as magazines or serial publications. If your point is to include every OS which has a CP/M compatible API, why not something like "CP/M compatible operating systems"? On that point, it is worth noting that MS-DOS has a partially CP/M compatible API. MS-DOS and the earlier 86-DOS uses the same function codes as CP/M-80 (although a handful of functions aren't implemented), and the legacy "CALL 5" interface was designed to support source-level compatibility with CP/M-80, so 8080 assembly language source be passed through a program such as Tim Patterson's TRANS.COM to generate 8086 assembly, and the result could then be assembled and run with minimal or no changes. Given this, why not include MS-DOS in such a category? SJK (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SJK: "If your point is to include every OS which has a CP/M compatible API, why not something like "CP/M compatible operating systems"?"
Almost, however, what I actually meant was CP/M binary-level compatible systems which are directly connected to Digital Research's CP/M in some way. "CP/M-compatible operating systems" might in fact be an alternative name for the category, but is somewhat vaguer than "CP/M issues" and would also include mere CP/M emulators or systems such as MSX-DOS, which are somewhat CP/M compatible, but are not based on Digital Research's CP/M.
Also "CP/M compatible operating systems" is much more long-winded for no immediate advantage. And it would be inconsistent with the similar "Category:DOS issues".
Again, "issues" is pretty normal vocabulary for this. In general, it is quite common for words in natural languages to have more than one meaning, but it is clear from the context that this category is not for CP/M bugs.
Regarding your argument on source-level compatibility, even if that would have existed, it would be exactly what would have to be excluded from a "CP/M issues" category. The category is about binary-level compatibility within each of the processor groups supported by CP/M. Neither 86-DOS nor MS-DOS 1 ever provided a CP/M API - they were not able to run CP/M programs (not even CP/M-86 ones), regardless if they used the INT 21h or the CALL 5 interface. Certain aspects of these systems (including portions of the DOS 1 API) were modelled after CP/M for easier source-level compatibility, but machine-translatability was limited to the most trivial cases. (BTW. Tim's surname is Paterson, not Patterson.)
So, while 86-DOS and MS-DOS do in no way belong into this category, there is some parallel relation to them outside the scope of this category, that's why we link to "Category:DOS issues" in the category's description.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "issues" is a poor descriptor of a category that only contains operating systems. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sub-category of Category:CP/M and Category:Operating system families, therefore a rather good descriptor for a category containing only such operating systems.
"CP/M variants and descendants" and "CP/M compatible operating systems" were suggested as alternatives, but are long-winded, and thus less desirable when a shorter form exists. Given the name of the parent category one might also consider "CP/M family" and in the parent category other sub-categories use the term "variants". Both, "CP/M family" and "CP/M variants" would be nicely short, but strictly speaking they would exclude CP/M compatible systems not originating from Digital Research, whereas "CP/M issues" does not and thus is still the most suitable of the provided proposals.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some of the articles are not about CP/M variants, they should simply be removed from the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the parallel discussion about "DOS issues" below the category name Category:CP/M systems was suggested as a possible alternative to "CP/M issues". Personally, I still prefer "CP/M issues", but "CP/M systems" would have my consensus as well if both categories would be renamed in parallel. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "CP/M systems" is better than the current name "CP/M issues". I'm not sure it is the best name – "systems" can have a range of meanings, including hardware systems, operating system components, etc. What about "CP/M operating systems"? That word "operating" helps exclude those other possible meanings. SJK (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"CP/M operating systems" would be very long. Also, for consistency the parallel DOS category would have to be named "DOS operating systems" then, which would be completely at odds given that "DOS = disk operating system" - kind of a double-tautology.
As I wrote, I considered many names when I created these two categories originally, and "issues" was the best I found. "systems" comes close and would have my agreement as well, but not "operating systems".
Yes, like the other terms "issues" has multiple meanings, but from the context it is being used in I find it rather unlikely that someone would read it as "bugs" (more than once and not immediately get it), and there haven't been complaints about the name in the eight years since it was created. Given, that the alternative names are not perfect as well and have multiple meanings either (and even some meanings which are more likely to be confused with), and some of them are also much clumsier, perhaps we should ready keep it as it is rather than trying to fix something that isn't actually broken.
I guess, there are other topics and serious problems, which much more urgently could benefit from our collaborative attention. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have categories with names longer than "CP/M operating systems". Consider for example Category:IBM mainframe operating systems, Category:MUMPS programming language family. So I don't think length is a big issue. Better a longer category name whose meaning is beyond any doubt than a briefer one which is more open to misinterpretation. (The RAS syndrome involved in "DOS operating systems" is somewhat unfortunate but not in my view fatal to the proposal.) Alternatively, I'd also suggest "CP/M variants", based on the example of Category:Unix variants. You argue above that "variants" couldn't include the original, but that is not how the "Unix variants" category uses the word "variants", it includes the original Bell Labs Unix editions within it (and its subcategories). I don't see why the original variant of a thing cannot be counted among its variants. One dictionary defines "variant" as "something that is slightly different from other similar things", which definition does not exclude the original variant of something from being a variant of it. Anyway, I think the best way forward here would be if some more editors would chime in, part of the reason this is dragging on is that only three editors have commented so far, and it is more difficult for a clear consensus (or at least majority) view to emerge when there are only three people participating. SJK (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the reason why there are so few other commentors is probably down to the fact that most people don't see the original name of the category as a problem and therefore choose to spend their energy in more pressing areas of this project. Either that, or that none of the alternative names is convincing.
Regarding "variants", this would in fact be the next (worst) alternative following "issues" and "systems" on my scale down to the really horrible names. On the plus side, it would be consistent with "Unix variants". The problem with "variants", however, is that it implies a direction - away from the original. In a strict sense, a term like "original variant" does not exist semantically. I agree, that in a more pragmatic sense, the original could be put into the set of variants as well for simplicity, but being pragmatic we could just as well stick to the name which was stable for eight years and therefore cannot be really bad: "issues".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "variants", however, is that it implies a direction - away from the original – can you support that claim from a dictionary definition or other source? The dictionary definition I cited, "something that is slightly different from other similar things", involves no notion of directionality. So, I don't agree that In a strict sense, a term like "original variant" does not exist semantically, since that seems to be your personal definition only, it is not supported by at least some dictionary definitions (such as the one I cited). SJK (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my personal definition, but the actual meaning, although colloquially the term is also used in a more relaxed way. For example, our Wiktionary states "A variant is something that is slightly different from a type or norm". The Duden states a variant is "a slightly modified thing, a derivation, a play on something". Being slightly different from a type or norm, being a modification or derivation implies that there is something like a standard, an original, a predecessor, a central piece, etc., and this implies a directional link from that norm to the variant. It also rules out that this link is bidirectional.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Duden"; if you are referring to the well-known dictionary of German, I don't see how a dictionary of German can tell us anything about the meaning of an English word. Regarding when Wiktionary says "A variant is something that is slightly different from a type or norm", that still doesn't imply that the original variant cannot be a variant. Read the article Boeing 747#Variants, which says "The 747-100 was the original variant launched in 1966". The original variant is a variant. When Wiktionary says that it is "slightly different from a type or norm", the 747-100 is a slightly different type of Boeing 747. The thing that all the variants are variants of, is not the original 747-100 variant, but rather the broader more abstract type "Boeing 747" of which all the variants (including the original 747-100) are variants. So, I'm sorry, none of your arguments demonstrate that the original cannot be a variant; indeed, a search for "original variant" in the article space of English Wikipedia yields 78 hits, which clearly demonstrates this is standard English usage. The actual meaning of variant includes "original variant". When you claim that "colloquially the term is also used in a more relaxed way", that isn't "colloquial" language at all, it is totally standard non-colloquial English. SJK (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unless the scope is altered to exclude variants and such, and only include official CP/M releases, in which case use "releases". I agree that "issues" isn't normal terminology for this; it sounds like the category means "bugs and other problems reported about CP/M".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm still unconvinced linguistically regarding that "issues" would not be pretty normal terminology and that "variants" would not rule out the original (at least in a strict sense), this discussion has now been up for two months, and therefore it is high time to settle and move on to more pressing things. Although "issues" is still my favourite, over the course of weeks my preference among the alternatives slowly changed from "systems" to "variants", mostly because this would be consistent with "Unix variants" and avoid the tautology imposed by "systems" (in the DOS case). Of the few participants in this discussion a small majority seems to favour "variants" over "issues" - so, let's rename the two categories into "CP/M variants" and "DOS variants" and be happy. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. And, yeah, I hadn't caught that "PIN number" issue. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I support proposal to close this by renaming to "CP/M variants" and "DOS variants". SJK (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2019 (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:DOS issues[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:DOS variants. MER-C 09:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "issues" is non-standard terminology. People normally use the word "issues" in computing to mean problems, things going wrong, not as a term to refer to versions/releases/editions/clones/etc.
This category seems to contain a mixture of (1) versions of MS-DOS (e.g. MS-DOS 5 Beta, MS-DOS 4.0 (multitasking)) (2) OEM releases of MS-DOS (e.g. COMPAQ-DOS, Z-DOS, IBM PC-DOS) (3) clones of MS-DOS (e.g. DR-DOS, FreeDOS), including operating systems which provide additional features like multitasking or multiuser but which support running MS-DOS applications (e.g. Multiuser DOS, TSX-32) (4) Windows 9x, which is really a separate operating system but which used MS-DOS as a boot loader and a backward compatibility subsystem and embedded an updated version of MS-DOS for both purposes (5) 86-DOS, which was the historic predecessor to MS-DOS (6) an abortive Apple/Novell project to port classic MacOS on top of DR-DOS (Star Trek project) (7) NTVDM, which is the MS-DOS emulation subsystem in 32-bit versions of Windows NT and descendants (up to and including Windows 10), and which includes a modified version of MS-DOS 5 to support that emulation
When a category's name is non-standard terminology, and seems to contain a bunch of things, which while they are obviously related to each other, it isn't clear what they all have in common (indeed, while they are all related to each other, they are related to each other in different ways), what should be done with it? I proposed deletion here, but wouldn't have a problem with alternative solutions, such as rename and split, but I'm not exactly sure how best to do that. SJK (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This category is meant to include entries for DOS-compatible operating systems for x86-compatible or IBM PC-compatible computers, as described in the category's description. This deliberately includes original, OEM and third-party implementations under their various names.
While the term "issue" is also used in the meaning described by the nominator, it is perfectly standard vocabulary to describe exactly what this category is meant to include. I am not aware of another term better describing what should be included in this category. Any alternative name for this category I could think up would be longer than necessary and inconsistent with the similarly named category "Category:CP/M issues", therefore no improvement.
Going through the list of entries, in my judgement this category did not contain a mixed "bunch of things" as claimed by the nominator. The only odd entry not belonging into this category was "MS Net" (which existed in an issue for DOS, but obviously was not a DOS issue), which I have therefore removed from the category. "MS-DOS 5 Beta" is kind of a borderline case: This category was not meant to list DOS versions or Beta versions per se, unless they really stood out with significant features not found elsewhere - MS-DOS 5 Beta was just a normal beta, nothing special about it - in contrast to MS-DOS 4, which was considerably different from normal MS-DOS versions.
Regarding Windows 9x: Windows 95/98/SE/ME is a bundle of MS-DOS 7/7.1/8 + Windows 4.x. The DOS portion is an integral part of the operating system, not only a "boot loader". Thus, these systems need to be listed here as well.
The category name was carefully chosen for this purpose and has been stable for eight years. I see this nomination as an unnecessary attempt to fix something that isn't broken. Therefore "Keep".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to you on the word "issues" in CP/M issues above, so I won't repeat myself here. Regarding Windows 9x/ME, when you say "The DOS portion is an integral part of the operating system", I don't agree, but it may all turn on how you define the phrase "integral part". Also, I don't see how NTDOS is a "DOS-compatible operating system" – NTVDM is an operating system component not an operating system, and if including an MS-DOS compatibility subsystem makes an OS "DOS-compatible", then why isn't OS/2 included here also? Or Linux distributions that include DOSEMU? I also have to question whether Star Trek project can count as a "DOS issue" – if it is an unreleased prototype, was it ever issued? SJK (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the Windows portion patches around in the underlying DOS system at runtime and vice versa, and that they use a number of undocumented and obfuscated interfaces to communicate with each other (some of which were never documented even in the "undocumented press"). In Windows 9x/SE/ME DOS is much more than a bootloader, it is a vital part of the system: The Windows portion depends on it and could not survive a second without it at runtime, as has also been demonstrated in court. The DOS and Windows portions can be ripped apart, and with minimal changes it is possible to run the Windows 4 portion on DR-DOS. While MS-DOS 7.0/7.1/8.0 are considerably different from MS-DOS 6.22 they are still genuine DOS versions, although more or less tied to Windows 4.x and only available in form of bundles named Windows 95/98/SE/ME. That's why Windows 95/98/SE/ME belong into this category as well.
NTVDM is a direct descendant from the MS-DOS source code. StarTrek is a direct descendant of DR DOS and a native DOS issue. DOSEMU is a PC emulator, not a DOS emulator. In that emulator, you can run various DOS isues, including MS-DOS, PC DOS, DR DOS, FreeDOS, etc. DOSEMU is not related to any source code from DRI, SCP, MS, IBM etc. and also not a native DOS issue. It is, however, listed in Category:DOS emulators. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "issues" is a poor descriptor of a category that only contains operating systems. But move the articles in this category (without the many redirects) to the parent Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles so that they stay within that hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support your proposal to move the articles to the parent category. SJK (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. It would serve no purpose, clutter up a parent category and would be against the principles of how we use categories (and sub-categories). Category:DOS issues is a sub-category of Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles and Category:Operating system families, and making Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles a sub-category of Category:Operating system families instead would make all the other sub-categories of Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles also sub-categories of Category:Operating system families, although they contain entries which are unrelated to operating systems. So, we need the sub-category in order to maintain orthogonality. Please make yourself familiar with the philosophy behind categories f.e. WP:CAT.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categories is to allow to browse the categories for keywords linking to related articles. The whole point of this category is to list all of the sometimes very odd names under which DOS was issued. So, removing the redirects would destroy this carefully set up infrastructure, and instead of gaining anything, we would loose almost everything.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DNWAUC, the purpose you are describing is far better served with a list article that allows proper sourcing. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed lack of sources as an argument against categories is a really odd strawman: the lack of references in the category system does not invalidate categories, nor would it invalidate entries in categories. References simply don't belong into categories (there's is nothing to complain about), but into articles - and this is where references can be found.
And, with all due respect, the essay you link to is sub-standard and IMHO downright silly contentwise - fortunately it is largely unsupported by the community for good reasons. By having a category grouping the various DOS issues we "do not write articles using categories" at all. We simply enable our readers to use the category system in the way it is intended to be used per our guideline WP:CAT. The individual entries are discussed in the respective articles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against list articles at all, but they serve a different purpose. List articles and categories are not mutually exclusive. So, it you want to create a list article in addition to the category, don't hesitate to create one - but it is unrelated to this discussion.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was not mentioned as a rationale for category removal, rather as a suggestion to help you retaining a "list (of) all of the sometimes very odd names under which DOS was issued" which was apparently your purpose. Articles about operating systems do not belong in a category about issues, and there aren't any articles about issues in this category, that is and remains the rationale for not keeping the category.Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds contradictory to me... You propose the deletion of a category for being (potentially) empty, while in fact the category is full of entries. As can be seen from its well populated state and my argument based on a properly defined and consistent category structure per WP:CAT above, there is an obvious need for this category.
By all means, if this ("Articles about operating systems do not belong in a category about issues") would be true, it would be a rationale to rename the category into something better rather than to delete it or to replace it by a list article. However, IMHO none of the alternative category names proposed so far was better focussed (angle of scope and direction) on what this category is supposed to include. One of them came close but was unnecessarily long, and the short ones were putting the focus on something else. So, renaming the category into one of these proposed names would not be an improvement IMO. I have been in the same situation when I originally created the category settling on the name "DOS issues" after carefully considering many alternative names, which, however, didn't cut it for one reason or another. Having a 95% solution is better than replacing it by a 50% or no solution at all just to satisfy some dogmatics. Unless one really comes up with the perfect category name for a 100% solution, I think this is attempting to fix something that isn't actually broken, and where applying some of the suggested "fixes" would result in the destruction of infrastructure and have a negative impact on the project. Let us be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no perfect name, but Category:DOS systems or Category:DOS variants would at least be clearer than the current name. In any case, there are only some 20 actual articles, they can easily be added to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the entries to the parent category would force us to make category "DOS on IBM PC compatibles" a sub-category of "Operating system families" whilst its sub-categories would not be valid sub-categories of "Operating system families". As already explained about, this would violate the hierarchical structure of our category system per WP:CAT, and thus can be ruled out as a valid alternative - also, it would mix the sub-category's entries with unrelated entries for no advantage at all. No good at all.
Regarding renaming: "DOS variants" does not cut it, IMHO, because, at least when being as strict about the meaning of the name as about "issues", it excludes DOS issues which are not "variants", but the "real thing". Category:DOS systems is somewhat vaguer (in a good sense here) and semantically comes closer to "DOS issues". Strictly speaking, it is undesirable because it is a tautology: "DOS" = "disk operating system". However, I could live with that given that the term "DOS" can be considered almost a proper name in this context rather than an abbreviation (otherwise we'd open yet another can of worms). Important to note for consistency, this name also works for the parallel CP/M issues/systems category discussion.
I consider these names as about equally good as the current ones, that is, I do not see them as an improvement, but also not as significantly worse. Therefore, if it would help to settle the case, a parallel rename of both categories Category:CP/M issues and Category:DOS issues into Category:CP/M systems and Category:DOS systems is at least something I could agree to, although I still prefer the current names and do not think a rename is actually necessary.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I mentioned in the discussion of CP/M above, I don't think "CP/M systems" is a good name, because it could mean machines which support CP/M as an operating system. I apply the same logic to oppose "DOS systems" as well. Thinking more about this, I think my strongest preference is for "MS-DOS-compatible operating systems". (The "MS-" part is important, since it makes clear we are not talking about IBM mainframe DOS, or Apple DOS, or Atari DOS, or any one of the numerous other incompatible operating systems which have been called "DOS" over the years.) "MS-DOS-compatible operating systems" includes the original PC-DOS and MS-DOS, since of course MS-DOS is compatible with itself. I don't think the length of the name is an issue either, given as I pointed out in the CP/M discussion, some category names are quite long already. Also, sticking the word "compatible" between "DOS" and "operating system" helps avoid the RAS syndrome issue (which I don't think should be seen as fatal to any proposal anyway). SJK (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I could not agree on this name at all. Basically, you are opening the can of worms I already "warned" about better not to open. The whole purpose of using the long-established term "DOS" was to avoid putting undue weight on one of the systems or issues listed (and in particular not on MS-DOS, which was by far the worst of those systems). Yes, DOS has other meanings as well, but in the context we talk about here, it cannot be confused with the others. Why not "86-DOS" or "PC DOS", which both were commercially released before "MS-DOS"? Or "DR-DOS", which was the innovator in the field by providing more flexibility and functionality and offering most features years before MS-DOS/PC DOS? Or "FreeDOS", which, while still not being 100% compatible, is probably the most used DOS today? "MS-DOS-compatible operating systems" is unnecessarily long, but it would also be an offense to put operating systems like DR-DOS into this category, because MS-DOS' predecessor 86-DOS was modelled after DR-DOS' predecessor CP/M (DR-DOS has copyrights going back to 1976, whereas 86-DOS appeared in 1980), and since DOS 5 MS-DOS was mostly modelled after DR-DOS as well - so, in more than one sense one could put MS-DOS into a "DR-DOS-compatible operating systems" category as well (no, I'm not suggesting this).
The technically correct and neutral term covering all these subtlety is "DOS", and even though it also has other meanings, this is the term used in the industry, because the other meanings can be ruled out from context.
Your original argument was that "issues" has multiple meanings and thus should be changed to something better. As has been pointed out correctly, there appears to be no perfect name, a name, which is neutral, has only one meaning, and is not too long/clumsy. All alternatives suggested have shortcomings as well, nevertheless, for a while it looked as if we could almost agree on "systems" (or less so on "variants") - but no longer. And now "DOS" isn't good enough either... This really looks like you want something changed for the simple sake of having something changed. Given that, the best solution to me appears to be to keep the existing name "DOS issues", which is standard vocabulary and has not caused any complaints in the 8 years since it was established. There is no pressing need to change the name, and in particular not to something that is not better. Let's move on to more important things to fix. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Marcocapelle: I think your proposal of "DOS variants" is best. I still think we should change "DOS" to "MS-DOS-compatible", but I think we can leave that out of scope for this CFD and just focus on "issues"-vs-"systems"-vs-"variants". Out of "systems"-vs-"variants", I think "variants" is the best, since "systems" could mean hardware systems or operating system components, "variants" lacks that ambiguity. And the original variant is a variant, see the CP/M discussion above. SJK (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Matthiaspaul that deleting/upmerging would be a counterproductive increase in entropy, by removing a well-defined WP:SETCAT and mixing its contents in to the more amorphous topic category Category:DOS on IBM PC compatibles. Neutral on renaming or rescoping the category. "DOS variants" is certainly an easier name for me to grok as a lay person, but I don't feel I have the subject-matter expertise to comment on whether it precisely captures the category criteria or reflects usage in RS. Colin M (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever is consistent with the concurrent CP/M case. E.g., move to "DOS variants" or "DOS releases" or whatever, depending on the scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm still unconvinced linguistically regarding that "issues" would not be pretty normal terminology and that "variants" would not rule out the original (at least in a strict sense), this discussion has now been up for two months, and therefore it is high time to settle and move on to more pressing things. Although "issues" is still my favourite, over the course of weeks my preference among the alternatives slowly changed from "systems" to "variants", mostly because this would be consistent with "Unix variants" and avoid the tautology imposed by "systems" (in the DOS case). Of the few participants in this discussion a small majority seems to favour "variants" over "issues" - so, let's rename the two categories into "CP/M variants" and "DOS variants" and be happy.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I support proposal to close this by renaming to "CP/M variants" and "DOS variants". SJK (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2019 (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:Wydad AC footballers[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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, opposed at Speedy page as pasted in box below. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Armbrust and Ben5218:. GiantSnowman 14:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (still) - the fact it's a multi-sport club (as most are) does not matter given the article is about the football department only. GiantSnowman 14:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my previous comment and per GiantSnowman. Ben5218 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all of the above, and generally for WP:CONSISTENT and WP:JARGON / MOS:COMMONALITY reasons. Use plain, international English when feasible. Support also per WP:PRECISE (WP is only as precise as is necessary). For any case in which a multi-sport club ends up either having separate articles about multiple sports, or an article that is about the club more broadly, across multiple sports, then we have a rationale to use "footballers" and other more-precise terms than "players". For now, we have no coverage of their players and their activities beyond footballers and football.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC); revised 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AC stands for Athletic Club and Wydad AC has sections engaging in about a dozen sports. This is unusual as most football teams have a club that only plays soccer. Accordingly, the present form is correct. I recall a similar discussion relating to Galataseri AC. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: you mean Galatasaray S.K. which is an article about the sports club, with separate articles about the separate divisions such as Galatasaray S.K. (football)? The Wydad article is about football. GiantSnowman 15:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting my spelling: exactly what I meant. My objection only refers to multi-sport clubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Armbrust: then please explain FC Barcelona and Category:FC Barcelona players? GiantSnowman 15:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you confused FC Barcelona (a football club) with Barcelona S.C. (a sports club known best for its football team). The category there is called Category:Barcelona S.C. footballers. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, and thanks for patronising me. 'FC Barcelona' is a multi-sports club (see other departments listed at FC Barcelona (disambiguation)) but the main article is about the football club and the category reflects that. This is the exact same as Wydad AC! GiantSnowman 16:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, sorry. But all of the entries on FC Barcelona (disambiguation) are partial title matches, so it's not a problem in that case. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: that is because the football club article is located at Galatasaray S.K. (football). GiantSnowman 10:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above and per WP:PRECISE (WP is only as precise as is necessary). For any case in which a multi-sport club ends up either having separate articles about mutiple sports, or an article that is about the club more broadly, across multiple sports, then we have a rationale to use "footballers" and other more-precise terms than "players". For now, we have no coverage of their players and their activities beyond footballers and football.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC); struck and merged to previous comment 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: You already !voted in this discussion, see above. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Derp. I'll merge my comments. See what happens when I run out of coffee? Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:58, 17 November 2019 (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:Chulalongkorn family[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. MER-C 10:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Chulalongkorn" is not recognised as the name of any family by any reliable source. The title is merely descriptive, and changing the word order would make the fact clearer. (An alternative suggestion is to upmerge to Category:Chakri dynasty and Category:Chulalongkorn, the latter of which has been recently created.) Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC) (Edit: struck one cat since members already present there --Paul_012 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If someone missed it, I already said above that I agree with merging. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:46, 16 November 2019 (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:2020 establishments[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. MER-C 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This, along with the related Category:2020 disestablishments and all of their subcategories, fly in the face of WP:CRYSTAL. Establishment/disestablishment may have been announced in a few cases, but the categorisation remains pure speculation until it actually happens. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that Seaworld case is an excellent example of what's wrong with these categories. How can a projected 2022 opening date announced in 2015 possibly be classified as almost certain, given the tendency for schedule slip in any major project? Admittedly, some of the other examples are less extreme, but they're still largely speculative... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this category cannot be deleted unless its subcategories and siblings (starting in 2021) are also deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be sufficient to propose the deletion of all the head categories, or would a list of all the subcategories be required for procedural correctness? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for 2020 categories, because we are only 2 months away from them being needed. However those for 2021 and beyond fail WP:CRYSTAL and should be deleted with all subcats. I would not oppose deletion as premature, provided all subcats were included in the nominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 2020 is nigh. Nærøysund looks like a valid entry, which might well be confirmed before this cfd is closed. 2022 could be a clear 'delete'. Oculi (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Scheduled events and releases of works, typically with sources. Not our own predictions. Dimadick (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We can cover likely things with reliably sourced announcements, but it's false for us to categorize them as "establishments" until they are actually established. WP:There is no deadline cuts both ways. The fact that "2020 is nigh" is completely irrelevant. This category should not exist until 2020 exists in at least one time zone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 16 November 2019 (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:Antitheists[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 manually (i.e. selective merge). MER-C 10:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Member articles have no sources or description of why the subject is an "antitheist". In my survey of several dozen pages included here, I found not a single one even mentioned the term "antitheist". This is a flagrant violation of WP:CATV and WP:EGRS. If sources can show that some of these people are/were, in actuality, antitheists, then those sources should be included and verbiage added to the articles before they can be categorized here. Elizium23 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2019 (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:New Mexico and Arizona Campaign[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 14#Category:New Mexico and Arizona Campaign

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_10&oldid=1073192259"