Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 February 29 >

February 28[edit]

Category:Texas Tech University images[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Texas Tech University images to Category:Images of Texas Tech University. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech University images to Category:Images of Texas Tech University
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To make consistent with other such image categories. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2008 (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:Lubbock, Texas, images[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Lubbock, Texas, images to Category:Images of Lubbock, Texas. 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Lubbock, Texas, images to Category:Images of Lubbock, Texas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To make consistent with other such image categories. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2008 (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:Fairfield Stags men's lacrosse coaches[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fairfield Stags men's lacrosse coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category was redundant. There had been only one entry. This was Ted Spencer. I removed him from him because it was overcategorization since he was also listed under Category:College men's lacrosse coaches. Mitico (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (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:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling match types[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 Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling match types to Category:Professional wrestling match types. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling match types (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete category and move contents into Category:Professional wrestling match types. A small category that doesn't serve much purpose, except to showcase exclusive matches that TNA has had. Many of which are just knock offs of existing match types. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No need to break down match types by the promotion that happens to stage one. Otto4711 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2008 (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:Turkish Germans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Turkish Germans to Category:Turks in Germany
Nominator's rationale: Merge, these two categories cover the same thing, and our article is called Turks in Germany (Turkish Germans redirects there). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem to me that the former of two categories is validated, since it should include individual ethnic Turks who are German citizens, whereas Turks in Germany simply refers to the community as a whole. Whether the latter category should exist at all is anybody's guess (as long as the distinction does not seem to be obvious). As I see it, there are two solutions: 1) make "Turkish Germans" as subcat for "Turks in Germany", move articles on persons to the former and keep generic articles in the latter (generic articles may mean the main eponymous article, as well as, say, articles on films about Turks in Germany, events related to the community, generic issues that relate to the community etc.). Place headers in both categories explaining what they should include, and therefore evidencing the distinction. 2) merge not "Turkish Germans" into "Turks in Germany", but the other way around - since the name would mainly refer to Turkish German persons, and other articles relating to the community could also be interpreted as relating to the persons. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are two sets of categories used for many/most countries. For Turks who became German citizens or their descendants, the standard category would be named 'Turkish Germans'. For expatriates (Turks living in Germany, but not citizens), the standard category would be 'Turkish expatriates in Germany'. Is there also a 3rd set of Turkisn people in Germany that needs a special category? Hmains (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no such third set. But just in case one wants to have a category for generic topics having to do with the community or the subject of Turks in Germany (including stuff such as, say, The Edge of Heaven), and keep the "Turkish Germans" and "Expatriates" categories as subcats for articles on individuals and only articles on individuals, one could argue that a category for Turks in Germany" may find a purpose. I for one do not know if that is necessarily the case, I'm just asking editors to weigh this possibility.
A possible precedent here is Category:African American, which has a main subcategory Category:African Americans - the former is for generic topics, the latter is for persons. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, it could be divided between those are German citizens and those who are not. But there are problems with that: (1) we don't always know what people's citizenship is, (2) there are many dual citizens, so the citizen/non-citizen line isn't clear, (3) there are so many more non-citizens of Turkish origin than citizens of Turkish origin in Germany that it hardly seems worth putting them in two separate categories. If we do go this route, though, then both categories should be clearly labeled as to which group they are intended to cover, and should have links to the other. Then someone will have to go through the articles one by one and make sure each article is in the correct category. And someone will have to keep checking the articles in each category one by one every few months to make sure everyone's still in the correct category, because there is no chance that editors will actually remember the distinction. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another problem. The article that actually brought these categories to my attention is Serhat Akın. He's a dual Turkish-German citizen who plays soccer for the Turkish national team and lives in Belgium. He's in Category:Turkish Germans, which is okay because he's a German citizen, but what if he weren't? If we keep two categories that follow the citizen/non-citizen dichotomy, where do we put someone of Turkish origin who (1) does not hold German citizenship, (2) was born in and grew up in Germany and presumably is a native speaker of German (most likely, is bilingual in German and Turkish), but (3) doesn't live there now? It looks like the third set does exist after all. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, to answer your Akin question: if he weren't, he would not belong at all; if he would still be a resident of Germany (i.e.: if he has or has had an address there), he would be a Turkish expatriate to Germany - if the subcat is to be created (though I personally thing that it is a tad overcategorizing), it would fit in Category:Expatriates in Germany.
But what about my proposal about the potential use of the two categories on the African American/African Americans model? Dahn (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon further reflection, he could be put in the expatriates category even though he doesn't live in Germany at the moment. Category:American expatriates in Germany, for example, includes people who at one time were expatriates in Germany, but aren't now. Having a separate, superordinate category for articles relating to the Turkish community in Germany but that aren't about individual people is probably a good idea if there are enough articles to populate it. It could even be called Category:Turkish community in Germany. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Akin: precisely. On the two categories: yes, that would probably be a change for the best (the more explicit the difference in titles, the better). Dahn (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Something major has been left out of this discussion: if I'm not mistaken, there are an awful lot of Turkish people who were born in Germany but are not citizens, due to Germany's restrictive naturalization laws. These people cannot be described as "Turkish expatriates" since they've never lived in Turkey, although they presumably (?) have Turkish citizenship. Simply put, they and their parents are "Turks in Germany". Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be, but is a valid criterion for categorization? If they are Turkish citizens (and this could and should be sourced in all problematic articles), then they are Turks pure and simple, and, at most, also "Expatriates in Germany" (though I admit this may turn out looking weird in some cases). If you and your children decide to live the rest of your lives in a country that you're not citizens of, you may be residents, but you'd still be expatriates. The question here is "Is 'Turks in Germany' also a good way to categorize?" My answer is no. For one, there is nothing explicit in creating such categories that would prevent people from adding to them people who spent a decade, a year, a week, or a day in x foreign country. Secondly, the expatriates cat seems to cover the meaning for all relevant purposes: you are one if not a citizen of the country where you reside. Dahn (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2008 (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:Advertising and Affiliate Networks[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:Internet advertising services and affiliate networks. Kbdank71 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Advertising and Affiliate Networks to Category:Advertising and affiliate networks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Decap. `'Míkka>t 17:56, 28 February 2008 (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.

Commercial failures[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Commercial failures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Failed airliners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Commercial failure lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Failed Microsoft initiatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Discuss - nominated for deletion in September, closed no consensus. However, per this CFD consensus has been reached on one of the subcats so I thought it would be a good idea to re-open the discussion. My only suggestion at this point would be to rename Failed Microsoft initiatives to something more neutral like Uncompleted Microsoft initiatives and try to figure out if there is a more value-neutral term for other constituent categories, if the feeling is that the categories themselves should be retained. Category:Commercial failures was originally called Category:Flops. Otto4711 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I have worked on games that have sold millions of copies and been called failures, and I have work on games that have sold a thousand copies and called successes. It's not a term you can use without explaining it, so I'd just remove it from the category system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sub-cat has been deleted already. In most areas of the business world, a failed product etc is entirely clear and unambiguous. It the ones called successes that lose money you have to watch out for. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? One is about plane models, one about airlines. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missed an 'r'. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is, for example, List of U.S. box office bombs either POV or subjective? Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list article is not under consideration here. Otto4711 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wow, if it were...what a mess. Standards for what constitutes a "bomb" vary from one film genre to another, films with low domestic grosses often make that up with overseas sales and distribution, the success of DVD and other home video distribution methods have created doubt as to the significance of the overall concept of "box office bomb", any one of those things would cast sufficient doubt on a bombs category had it not already been deleted last April. Otto4711 (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all those points are made in the article. Nonetheless the scope of the list is clearly defined, and the figures are sourced, so there might be scope for a rename, but there is no reason whatsoever to delete, and the same goes for the category. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the list has absolutely no actual bearing on the category because there is no category specifically for film "bombs" because the category was deleted 11 months ago. Under my proposal, the only category that would be deleted is the parent, because its constituent categories would be re-parented elsewhere with POV-neutral names and it would be empty. "Failure" is subjective. "Discontinued" or "Uncompleted" is not. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In business, unlike art, failure is far from subjective, and this is a fundamentally misconcived effort, that will distort our coverage of these areas. If you don't like the names, suggest new ones. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmmm, yeeeeeah, see, here's the thing...I in fact did suggest new names. Did you even read the comment to which you responded? You know, the one with all the rename suggestions in it? Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bother to read my comments you will see I endorse your original rename. "Discontinued airliners" would destroy the point of the category by including dozens of highly successful models of yesteryear, ditto the lists "rename", and as for "uncompleted" !!! What does that mean? Sensible renames would be along the lines of List of films that were loss-making on U.S. cinema release and so on. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unclear as to why you keep trying to drag list articles into the Categories for Discussion nomination because lists are not categories. Otto4711 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The articles listed in this category give some excellent examples of how ideas and initiatives in business can fail spectacularly, and this category provides a convenient place in which to list them. It's often interesting to find out about products that were launched, often with much fanfare, and then were suddenly shelved, perhaps because of poor sales or because the company went bust. Andrew (My talk) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment points out another problem with the article. If a product is selling briskly, but is removed from the market because the company selling it goes out of business for reasons unrelated to the product, is the product itself reasonably categorized as a "failure"? No. Whereas categorizing such products as "discontinued" or "defunct" imparts the same information (that the product has been removed from the market) but avoids the unacceptable POV/OR assertion that the product "failed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples please! Such products are usually snapped up by a competitor. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of such products that are "snapped up by competitors" and an explanation as to how such products can be considered "failures"? Otto4711 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you are the one who seems to want to call them failures. A product selling "brickly" is unlikely to be removed from the market at all, assuming it is doing so at a profit. All products have a life-cycle so a discontinued one may have been highly successful - failures are those that never take off, and are unfortunately a very real and important part of commercial life. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well dear, that's rather the point. These categories make no differentiation between products which did well but were discontinued, products that did well but not well enough to be continued, products that did less-than-well and were sold off, those that did not perform up to expectations, those that didn't continue for some other reason, etc.. The notion that products which sold well are unlikely to be discontinued is opinion unless backed up by reliable sources (sometimes products that sell well are discontinued for reasons other than "they're failures"). The idea that I'm wanting to call any product a failure in light of my suggestion that all such categories be renamed/merged/deleted is, to say the least, odd. At this point you seem to be, well, making things up in an attempt to save the categories. Making things up about the categories themselves, making things up about the potential content of the categories and making things up about my opinion about the categories. Sadly, your obfuscation is probably enough at this point to result in keeping the categories as is instead of generating any real consensus based on the actual categories. Otto4711 (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories distinguish them fine; it is you who are trying to obscure the differences. I wasn't aware I needed to reference comments made here; but I might equally well ask you to ref some of the breakthroughs in economic theory you have produced above. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think that "products leave the market for a variety of reasons" is all that much of a breakthrough, but hey, if you want to submit me to the Nobel folks I have no objection. Otto4711 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (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:Women writers by century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Women writers by century to Category:Women writers by time period
Suggest merging Category:Women writers by historical period to Category:Women writers by time period
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename, Consistent with Category:Writers by time period. Both categories are mainly intended as holders of subcategories and since neither has too many subcats, merging them is simply more convenient. Note also that there's no loss of information by doing this merge. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you haven't made it at all clear what categories would be left at the end, from these two different classifications. You want "to be consistent with Category:Writers by time period" but that is a complete mess too, with some centuries, but not others, periods like "Baroque", and so on. What do you actually want to end up with? Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't mind the overlapping characterization of "baroque", which is a period in the cultural sense, and xxth century, which is a period... in the century sense. I don't think there's much to lose by keeping both the "medieval writers" and the individual centuries, in part because "medieval writers" only makes sense for Europeans. Many writers will be categorized in more than one period and that's ok. I just don't see any added value to the extra layer of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as overcategorization by sex. Otto4711 (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge both per nom This will unconfuse the situation and is a good solution. Hmains (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm okay with WW by time period, but (a) it could be a parent category of both, or (b) possibly a parent category of "by era" and merger of "by century". Deletion is not an option. WW seriously needs to be subcatted, and historical eras is a very appropriate way to do it. In fact, the arguments that some editors make about categories based on gender/race/sexuality being overcat or non-defining are utterly mooted by historical periods. Whatever one might believe about the irrelevance of a gender category today, there is no question that the intersection was and is defining for historical personages. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly agree with Lquilter concerning deletion. Women writers prior to the 20th century (even late 20th century) form a distinct group of tremendous interest. Deleting the category is nonsensical. As for having the category as a parent of both, I just don't see the point. It gives an extra level of categorization with little or no benefit. The merger would result in a category with 20 subcategories and 2 lists. In time, it may grow to include maybe a dozen extra lists or so, at most 10 other subcategories (and even that seems generous). So navigation will be smooth within the category. Pichpich (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary sex categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment say what? The guideline WP:CATGRS lists Category:Women composers, Category:Female Nazis, Category:Male porn stars as reasonable by-gender categories and you want to classify women writers of the 18th century as 18th century writers? The same guideline says a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, and you want to make the argument that George Sand's gender has nothing to do with how she wrote? That it's meaningless to find her in the same category as Mary Shelley? I don't think you've thought this through. Pichpich (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Women writers was previously deleted and reversed after considerable debate. The topic of "women writers" is exceedingly well studied and definitively meets WP:CATGRS. Nothing has changed in the intervening time to suggest any change in this category or reasoning. Deleting the category for overcategorization by gender is not on the table. The question is simply what to do with the "by years", "by time periods", and so on. Pointless "delete" comments don't really add to that discussion. --Lquilter (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. People seriously need to bury the hatchet over this and move on. Pichpich (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete per Lq. Merging two different half-full schemes into one cat seems like a recipe for a car-crash to me, so I won't comment. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm ambivalent about the merger right now -- I think it needs to be thought out very carefully and with more than the 5-day CFD period, and we should have the regular women writers contributors weigh in. --Lquilter (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:26, 28 February 2008 (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.

American culture by city cleanup[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 per nom. I understand the reasoning behind leaving off the state, but right now the consensus leans toward adding it. Plus, per the nom, the remainder of Category:American culture by city is already "culture of foo, bar". If required, a new CFR can be opened that will rename all of them now that they are the same. Kbdank71 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Atlanta culture to Category:Culture of Atlanta, Georgia
Category:Washington, D.C. culture‎ to Category:Culture of Washington, D.C.
Category:St. Louis culture‎ to Category:Culture of St. Louis, Missouri
Category:San Jose, California culture to Category:Culture of San Jose, California
Category:San Francisco culture‎ to Category:Culture of San Francisco, California
Category:San Diego culture to Category:Culture of San Diego, California
Category:Pittsburgh culture to Category:Culture of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Category:Culture of Phoenix to Category:Culture of Phoenix, Arizona
Category:Philadelphia culture‎ to Category:Culture of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Category:Culture in Omaha, Nebraska‎ to Category:Culture of Omaha, Nebraska‎
Category:New York City culture‎ to Category:Culture of New York City
Category:New Orleans culture to Category:Culture of New Orleans, Louisiana
Category:Minneapolis culture to Category:Culture of Minneapolis, Minnesota
Category:Culture in Miami‎ to Category:Culture of Miami‎, Florida
Category:Louisville culture‎ to Category:Culture of Louisville, Kentucky
Category:Las Vegas culture to Category:Culture of Las Vegas, Nevada
Category:Los Angeles culture‎ to Category:Culture of Los Angeles, California
Category:Culture of Houston‎ to Category:Culture of Houston‎, Texas
Category:Lancaster, Pennsylvania culture‎ to Category:Culture of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Category:Culture of El Paso‎ to Category:Culture of El Paso‎, Texas
Category:Detroit culture to Category:Culture of Detroit, Michigan
Category:Denver culture‎ to Category:Culture of Denver, Colorado
Category:Culture in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to Category:Culture of Cumberland, MD-WV-PA
Category:Cleveland culture‎ to Category:Culture of Cleveland, Ohio
Category:Cincinnati culture‎ to Category:Culture of Cincinnati, Ohio
Category:Chicago culture‎ to Category:Culture of Chicago, Illinois
Category:Buffalo, New York culture to Category:Culture of Buffalo, New York
Category:Boston culture‎ to Category:Culture of Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Baltimore culture‎ to Category:Culture of Baltimore, Maryland
Category:Austin culture‎ to Category:Culture of Austin, Texas
Category:Culture of Milwaukee to Category:Culture of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Category:Culture of Tulsa to Category:Culture of Tulsa, Oklahoma
Category:Seattle culture‎ to Category:Culture of Seattle, Washington
Nominator's rationale: Standardizing the members of Category:American culture by city. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Seems logical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the condition that this be made a speedy approval criteria and that its should be applied to all locations irregardless of the name of the parent article. We really don't have category disambiguation so when there is a conflict we should default to a disambiguated form for the category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A little clarification please on your Speedy Rename idea, please. Are you talking about US city sub-cats in general, or about these culture cats in particular? I would agree with a general speedy rename criteria for US city subcats from "<condition> of/in <city>" to "<condition> of/in <city>, <state>". There are many, many city cats that could/should be renamed in this way, and a speedy criteria would greatly ease that effort. In fact, some of those were going to be next on my agenda, after getting the culture ones cleaned up. I wanted to get the culture ones done first, as a group, since they are a bit more complicated than simply adding a state to the names. Some are going from "in" to "of". Some are adding the state. And others are changing structure totally. With all these different name structures initially, I wanted to get these all consistant first before I did any city by city submissions for the other city sub-cats. So to summarize, if you are suggesting a speedy rename criteria on the general US city sub-cat name structure, then I would support that. If you are suggesting something on just the Culture sub-cats, then I'm not sure I would support something that narrow. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion is for any category with a place name. It is not restricted to the culture tree or the US.
    Right now we get into too many discussions like this. These result in odd looking categories where the entries do not follow a common form. So we may have Category:foo in xxx, New York, Category:foo in xxx, California and Category:foo in xxx. This tends to confuse readers and means that someone who is working to clean up categories needs to be an expert in every location naming convention and know of every exception and every possible conflict and be able to determine primary use. That is not reasonable in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We would need to decide exactly what the rename pattern would be in all cases. Category:foo in city to Category:foo in city, state works fine for the US, but what about cities in other countries? Do they all get Category:foo in city, country? Category:foo in city, state? Category:foo in city, state, country? That last is getting a bit much, but I wonder. If the US gets broken down by state, which if any of the rest of the world do as well? Some, like Canada and Australia make at least some sense to break down by stat, but just how far does it go? If it's a Speedy rename criteria, it needs to be totally clear on exactly which renames are or are not allowed under the criteria.
    And one side note. All of New York appears to list itself as "New Your City", instead of "New York, New York". This one works well enough for me, and I don't really see much point in trying to clean up it in particular. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the one exception is to rename Category:Culture in Cumberland, MD-WV-PA to Category:Culture in Cumberland, Maryland, West Virginia and Pennsylvania or something similar. While longer, we don't use abbreviations in category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I would not oppose this. I wanted to have this nomination be specifically about the issue of giving the culture cats a consistent name structure, and deliberately avoided any side issues, but I have no particular objection to addressing this side-issue at the same time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at Category:Cumberland, Maryland, I'm going to back-track on this one. There are quite a few Cumberland city sub-cats that use this abbreviated structure. If we change just this one, it will be the odd-ball. I think that this issue needs it's own CFR nomination for the lot of them, so that the issue can be dealt with properly for them all as a group, rather than piece-meal solutions from CFRs where this is a side issue. None of this says that I don't think that this is an issue to be fixed, but rather that this CFR is the wrong place/time to fix it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not opposed to addressing those in one CfR. Feel free to do the nomination since you are more aware of the details there. I will support the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My problem would be that I have absolutely no idea what would be a good pattern for naming them. The suggestions you gave, listing out all three states, just seem a bit much to me. These are basically for the Cumberland metro area, best as I can see. Hmm. Maybe a thread on the talk page of Cumberland itself to get input from people who actually live in the area. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose overeaching. --evrik (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially Category:Philadelphia culture. --evrik (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain what you mean by 'overreaching'? This is just renaming to what has been consensus for categories for a long time now. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restricted Support. On reflection and discussing other nominations I would support changing the form to Category:Culture of foo and nothing more. Do not add the state at this time. I am thinking that if you leave off the state it by default includes the surrounding area which is likely how these cats being used. If they specifically list the state, then they are only for the city proper. I don't see any objection in the discussion above to fixing the form so this should be a go. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (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:Libertarian micronations[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 delete, creator's request. BencherliteTalk 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian micronations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Overcategorization, no potential for growth. This category appears to have been created expressly for the lone article that it holds, which is contrary to the fundamental rationale for categories. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (creator). Actually, it was created when there were three articles on micronations in Category:Libertarianism, but the others were uncategorised due to objections to their being labelled as 'libertarian'. Now that there's just one, I think it's fair to say that it has become extraneous. Bastin 18:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (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.

"Astronomical..." templates[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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming...

Category:Astronomical templates to Category:Astronomy templates
Category:Astronomical infobox templates to Category:Astronomy infobox templates
Category:Astronomical navigation templates to Category:Astronomy navbox templates

...as "Astronomical" has more overtones of size than topic...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2008 (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:Feluda[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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Feluda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a fictional character. Otto4711 (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (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:Rivers of the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu subbasin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Rivers of the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu subbasin to Category:Tisza basin
Nominator's rationale: Both categories are meant for rivers that are tributaries or subtributaries of the river Tisza (in Romanian: Tisa). Iza and Vişeu are relatively small tributaries of the upper Tisza, not necessary to mention them in the category name as well. Markussep Talk 08:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge The Tisza basin is a big basin, which justifies having separate categories for tributaries. Actually such categories exist for other subbasins such as the Someş, Criş and Mureş.
The Tisa - Iza - Vişeu subbasin category groups all the smaller subbasins on the territory of Romania, such as the Vişeu, Iza, Mara, Săpânţa a. o., which do not justify separate categories for each of them. This group is the official name of the upper river basin, used by the various central water authorities of Romania since 1957 (at present the Ministry of Water and Environment). Being used for over half a century, this classification has proven its utility. The rivers have official codes for each river basin (which are required to unambiguosly define rivers with identical, similar and multiple names. These river basins and codes are used in all official documents for the rivers. It makes little sense to abandon a system which is officially used for those rivers and which enables any interested person to identify relevant documentation in Romania. The classification is also used in international documentations for projects related to waters in Romania.
I do not object to other categories, but simply consider that this category should not be deleted. Categories are intended to help readers to identify the articles related to a certain area of interest. While some may not be interested in the official groups of rivers in Romania, there will be others who are concerned with this approach. I see no reason why some persons should be denied the possibility of finding the subjects they are interested in.
I also respectfully disagree with the proposal on the basis that the tributaries are small. There are 172 articles which refer to rivers in this subbasub and are included in this category. This is a substantial number and should in itself justify the existence of the category. Afil (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You created nearly all of these articles, and many categories (see these subcategories according to a system that is not quite clear to me. What I miss is links with the greater basin categories (e.g. Category:Danube basin). I found some errors, e.g. Pogăniş River (Timiş) was in the Tisa-Iza-Vişeu category, but it isn't a tributary of the Tisza. Category:Rivers of the Timiş-Bega subbasin (where the Pogăniş article apparently belongs) is very strange: the Timiş flows directly into the Danube, the Bega flows into the Tisza. Hydrographically, this category is useless and I think it should be split. About this category containing 172 articles: it seems better to me to divide it further into subbasins. Anything to make these river articles more accessible than they are now. Markussep Talk 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Confusing, subjective overcategorization. I also suggest a review of all such subcategories, and an extended discussion about the purpose and logic behind many of them. Dahn (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rivers by ultimate major river system is not an unreasonable way to categorize rivers, but it would be parallel to the geographic categorization by nation-state and sometimes by subnational unit. There is some beauty to avoiding the latter in particular because many larger rivers flow through several nations, and numerous subnational units - so adding much cat clutter to river articles. That said, this is probably overcat and the Tisza basin probably sufficies. If this is kept the names should be Anglicized (which also means Magyarified in this context). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference in the various approaches. Mine is not theoretical. I started these articles after having worked as an international consultant on water problems in various developing countries in Asia, Africa and Europe, among which Romania. In all these countries I had difficulties in identifying the various rivers locals were talking about. The information was posted just to simplify the work of other experts who would be facing the same problems. The main criterion for searching rivers would be to use the type of classification which the local authorities are using as this is the way existing information is presented. I have no objections to adding other categories, but eliminating or merging the existing ones would significantly reduce the usefulness of the information. Information such as this will not be used very much for academic purposes - and if it is, it can easily be identified by scholars. Dahn may find it subjective, however it is an official way of classifying rivers and grouping rivers by subbasins is also recommended by the European Union experts as well as in other countries. The categories should reflect the needs of the persons who would use the information.
The categories of river basins is not definitely not subjective. It was adopted half a century ago after a debate and a discussion in which many experts have participated. It has been used for over 50 years in practical activities and had demonstrated its usefulness. For instance, taking the example of the Timiş - Bega basin. The two rivers have been linked by diversions flowing from one river to another, these works being constructed in the XIXth century. For about 150 years the constitute a single water management system and there are many features of the river basin which cannot be separated. The lower part of the system has also been linked by the DTD canal in Serbia. This is just a proof that the existing categories are not subjective or arbitrary. It is very easy throw around sweeping statements like that, but they are totally false and simply prove that they are made without an serious analysis of the problem.
Including all rivers of the Tisza basin into a single group would be extremely difficult to manage. At present there are probably about 5,000 articles for such rivers, and if, eventually all rivers would have their articles, the number of articles could exceed 15-20,000. Such categories are difficult to manage and anybody trying to use them would need subcategories. But again, take into account not the teoretical part but the people who hopefully will use Wikipedia. Some are interested in River Basins or natural units, some are interested in countries or administrative units. Each user should find what he is looking for. It would be wrong to tell a user he should look only at river basins or at countries.
As far as I am concerned this is not a game and not a sterile discussion. It is serious information which is provided to experts who need it. I would have been happy to have this king of information in the various countries where I needed it and I am aware that there are other professionals who could use it. One of its uses is for staf involved in water related disaster intervention, simply because in such operations information must be easily found and time can be critical. But if it is available in a way in which it could not be found, it is useless. The question is if Wikipedia is the right place to post such information or if should pe posted elsewhere so that the people who really need it can find it. Afil (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps at some point we should bring in WP:NOTE to discuss just how many of those [supposedly] 5,000 articles do really fit the guideline. I would also like to point out that a category being large is not itself a reason for subcategorizing (consider Category:1967 births). I also note that, at this point, there are several chaotic and seemingly competing ways of cross-subcategorizing rivers, all of which make the articles hard to find and locate for the user who does not already know a helluvalot about Romanian geography, and all of which were created by one editor. I.e.: the exact opposite of the practicality involved here.
I have a hard time picturing professionals who are set to deal with each and all disasters in Romania and who would resort to wikipedia (the English wikipedia) in order to find their place on the map. In what concerns the creation of articles, this goal appears to be borderline to WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (the latter also includes a reference to non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, which could be said to apply to a tee in this case). Dahn (talk) 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult for me, and I guess for most other users, to see how notable a river like Valea Morii River (Ruşchiţa) is. No length, basin area or average flow rate are given, for all I know it could be a 20 cm wide and 300 m long ditch. About categories sytems, currently, there are categories by Romanian county (e.g. Category:Rivers of Caraş-Severin County), by hydrographic basin (the above mentioned Danube basin and Tisza basin), and the categories Afil created, that are "almost" by basin. I think the latter two systems overlap so much that they shouldn't exist side by side. If the main problem Afil wants to solve with these categories is ambiguous river names, it would be better to create disambiguation pages, because you can give more discriminating information there than in a category name. Those disambiguation pages are still missing for most of the names at hand (Valea Morii only refers to villages, Valea Morii River doesn't exist, none of the 10 rivers Slatina in the category "rivers in Romania" are mentioned in Slatina River). Markussep Talk 12:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the matter, there was also a debate surrounding the notability of villages themselves, where I and other users noted that they are not articleworthy by default (I for one think that they are never articleworthy). You see, a village is awarded no official recognition in Romania, and is at best the informal "quarter" of a commune - meaning that wikipedia, which sets itself guidelines sifting articles on actual quarters based on notability (and implicitly size), is gifted with separate articles for what are in effect quarters comprising, at best, around 1,000 people, at worst (and usually) hundreds or even tens of people.
To my knowledge, no Romanian encyclopedia keeps separate articles for villages and communes, but has all info on villages folded under communes - which is the same as what I have proposed. Having articles on villages also creates major problems in content (especially the issue of content forking). For one, if both articles on commune and village come to exist and grow to an acceptable size (as if), they are bound to have almost the same content. Sourcing for such articles is often impossible - many sources do not detail info for villages, but merely for communes, and there are simply not enough sources that would adequately serve both an article on the commune and one the village to the point where either of them would have a remote chance of becoming a good (not to say featured) article. There is a huge issue of ambiguity in sources - since all communes have an eponymous village, do sources who simply mention the name refer to the village or to the commune? (I mean, they certainly took place in the commune, but if we have more specific articles we are bound to wonder what the source means). Linking to these articles will lead to a dilemma - should the article on a person say s/he was born in the commune, in the village, or in both? Dahn (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2008 (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:Chilean-American Wikipedians[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: wrong forum, moving to WP:UCFD. BencherliteTalk 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chilean-American Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a redundant category, as both Category:Wikipedians in Chile and Category:American_Wikipedians already cover this. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum, try WP:UCFD. In fact, I'll move it there myself. BencherliteTalk 22:33, 28 February 2008 (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:Green Scare[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. Kbdank71 13:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Green Scare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Green anarchism, it is essentially a buzzword, per the article, meaning it impossible to verify what should or should not be categorized as such. Rockpocket 06:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I definitely don't think that it is redundant to Green anarchism. John Zerzan could be put in Green anarchism, but not in Green Scare, as he is a Green anarchist, but has not been swept up in the Green Scare. It's like saying that a Red Scare cat would be redundant to Communism. Murderbike (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Indeed, but everything in Green Scare is also in Green Anarchism (or should be) and since Green Scare isn't something tangible but a term used by the activists themselves, its difficult to verify what the limits are. Its in danger of turning into a POV dump for any wronged activist (like we have seen with the article on occasion.) Also, it might be worth pointing out that we don't have a Category:Red Scare, despite it being a much more widely used term. Rockpocket 06:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think that's the case, the activists who have been given severe sentences for their environmental activities and labelled "Green scare" activists are not all green anarchists, with some probably insulted by the idea of being titled as such. As to be within the green anarchism category, the individual would have to be a green anarchist. Similarly not all ELF prisoners are part of the green scare, some before then are not part of it, those who have died and those from different countries and so fourth. I hope this explains it further, although admittidely it takes on both a large section of GA/ELF categories, only in the same way that the ALF category is made up entirely of the animal liberation movement etc, etc. User:Blueberrypie12 Talk 09:14 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The point is, what reliable sources are there that defines who is and who isn't categorised as part of the Green Scare? We already have Tre Arrow in the article and his crimes appear to have been committed before the term was even first documented! Rockpocket 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's above comments; it would be too subjective to determine what exactly gets included; there are no objective inclusion criteria or definitions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you go to GreenScare.org you will see the prisoners that are categorised under "Green Scare". The original defendants and friends are the ones among to of originally coined the now accepted term, which directly relates to the Operation Backfire (FBI) defendants. As you can see on the page, there is the main case and then other cases that are connected, related or just put under the scope of Operation Backfire. It's the FBI who decide which ELF to-be-prisoners are part of Operation Backfire, therefore it is them choosing who is part of the Green Scare or not; which directly reflects those defendants. I hope this makes more sense, there are other prisoners (a fair few infact) that are inprisoned because of their ELF actions, but are not part of the green scare because they are not part of Op.BF.

Blueberrypie12 Talk 04:50 2nd March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GreenScare.org is clearly not a reliable source, but an activist website. We should not be categorising according to partisan definitions (We don't, for example, have a Category:Operation Backfire just because that is what the FBI calls them, so why have a category for what supporters call them?) Rockpocket 01:35, 3 March 2008 (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:Beninese-American actors[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. As noted, the article is already otherwise categorised, so upmerging is not required. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Beninese-American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yeah, I checked to be sure, and he's already well-categorized. Cgingold (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He even has Category:Beninese-Americans all to himself. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:38, 28 February 2008 (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:American production managers[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. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American production managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Former polities of the Cold 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:Former polities 1945-1991. Kbdank71 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former polities of the Cold War to Category:Former polities existed after World War II
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The idea of the category is clear: WWII was a major watershed in the World history. But what the heck, say, Occupation of Japan or French Fourth Republic had to do with Cold War? Also, "Spain under Franco" is hardly a separate "polity". So, under a second thought, even my proposed renaming is too "tame". Let experts in politics suggest a better name. `'Míkka>t 02:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something. Dominion of India has nothing to do with the Cold War also. Just Category:Former polities 1945-2000? Some of the other categories are equally suitable for renaming; date ranges might be best. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assigning a time period for these will be POV - while many had Cold War genesis and end of Cold War endings the explanation is deeper than that. And the editors' choices of what to select is somewhat a reflection of that: Franco's Spain is just a historical interval of Spain's existence - after Franco, Spain is still Spain. Zaire? Not the only country that had revolutions, or civil wars? Is it countries that have changed their names that let's Zaire in the door - quick throw Burma and Upper Volta, Malagasy, Malaya, Persia, Yugoslavia, Central African Empire, and the Dutch East Indies in as well, then. No this is an OR & POV category. Former polities is itself somewhat problematic at the edges, but trying to figure out which played some role in the Cold War is too much by far. The alternative is little better, what is the magic about WWII - decolonization was by far the more important development in the 20th century for border/polity shifts than WW2, unless we take a Euro-centric POV which we ought not do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that Category:Former polities 1945-2000 would be POV, why? It is hardly either POV or OR to imply that 1945 marked a global political watershed. Malagasy, Malaya, Persia, Yugoslavia either existed previously and/or changed their name (like Sri Lanka) just for the hell of it. I agree Spain does not really belong here, or some others, but the category, and tree seems to me to have a useful role. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After being reminded by the cat above, don't forget Dahomey either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment how about Category:Former polities 1945-1991? This span would include the breakup of the USSR (1991) with its former SSR components while 2000 seems like an arbitrary year that has no particular significance. Hmains (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take any date, including "-present". The post-89 changes rumbled on after 91 though, I think. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (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:The Great Powers, 1900-1914[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. Kbdank71 13:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Great Powers, 1900-1914 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what the topic really is but the name doesn't seem to specify an inherently notable subject area. It is for coutnrie, events? Who picked the cut off dates (why not 1871-1917?), etc. Kevlar67 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps the creator can shed some light on this. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've had a notification as the creator but it was not, in fact, me.--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah -- I think my computer was playing a tricks on me! I did see your name there, three times -- that should count for something. Oh well, I just left a note for the real creator. Cgingold (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This category contains a clutch of articles dealing with the various stepping stones that led to WWI and is thus highly notable. However, the category name is clumsy. I propose merging the contents into Category: World War I politics which is already home to some of its articles. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that all of these articles are either already categorized in either Category:World War I politics or its' child, Category:Causes of World War I, or if they aren't, they could (and should) be; this category doesn't seem to provide any additional navigational utility. Carom (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these were notable international incidents among the nations that eventually became the primary combatants in WWI but as for what caused WWI there is no one agreed-upon theory of which of these events contributed to WWI, deferred it, diffused it, or - the safe bet - merely predated it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_28&oldid=1138390199"