November 1
Category:US Natural Advantage
Category:Virtual Worlds - Kids
Category:The Parlotones
Category:Medical schools in California
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge to
Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Medical schools in California (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete: This category is an
overcategorization of intersection by location. All medical schools in the US are already categorized in
Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. No other states' medical schools have been subcategorized (except for
Puerto Rico). All schools in the US have a similar curriculum that prepares students for licensure as a physician. There are no distinct differences in education by state, so there is no need to separate them by state on this ground. Also, since there are only 154 medical schools in the US, which are all present in the
list of medical schools in the United States, there is no need to subdivide into categories by state for ease of browsing. The category was previously populated by 9 articles, but I removed them to avoid categorization in both
Category:Schools of medicine in the United States and its current subcategory,
Category:Medical schools in California.
Scott Alter
21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Category now re-populated. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry about removing the articles from the category, but I was already going through all of the articles and fixing other categorizations, before I even thought to bring it up here. That's why I provided a link to
list of medical schools in the United States - so you could see the 9 schools located in CA that were in the category. Also, it appears that you did not just add back this category, but rather revert my entire edits. I also fixed additional categories, that did not require discussion. --
Scott Alter
22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry for any collateral damage in the restoration; the edit summaries appeared to suggest the same change in each case, but I should have checked more carefully. Please feel free to restore the other fixes, but for future reference, please don't remove an article from an accurately-applied specific category to a general one; if you think that a category is too narrow or otherwise un-needed, bring it to CfD or (speedy it if appropriate), but don't just empty it :) --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:UK Raving
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:UK Raving (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Strangely sparse and wide-ranging category which seems to bear no relation to the existing category structures, and whose stated purposes seems more appropriate to an article tan a category. (Note: this categ was orphaned, so I placed it in
Category:Music). I'm not sure whether there might be something here worth salvaging, and in any case some articles are categorised only in this categ, so I have left a message at
WP:MN.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Travel blogs
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Travel blogs to
Category:Travel websites
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, only five articles in this rescued - from-the-orphanage category, none of which are actually blogs. Some are blogging websites on which users can create their own blogs, but others are social networking sites.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Regierungsbezirk
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename
Category:Regierungsbezirk to
Category:Government regions of Germany and
Category:Former Regierungsbezirk to
Category:Former government regions of Germany.-
Andrew c
[talk]
20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, The categories should be in plural form. The German plural would be
Category:Regierungsbezirke or, if
translated in English,
Category:Government regions of Germany.
Olessi
20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Government regions of Germany and
Category:Former government regions of Germany, since this is an English-language publication and these are not
proper nouns. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per BHG, as long as we have translated Gemeinde->Municipality; Kreis->District, Bundesland->State, we might as well fully anglicize Germany's various subdivisions.
Carlossuarez46
22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support translation to English. With few exception (e.g. in
Category:Subdivisions of Ukraine) English terminology is used throughout the WP. While the translation may not capture the spirit of the term completely at least it gives more clue to the reader.
Pavel Vozenilek
04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support plural - no opinion on language.
Agathoclea
08:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per BHG.
Doczilla
00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strongly oppose translation and rename as originally nominated.
Regierungsbezirk is a
proper noun, if I'm not mistaken. "Government region" is not particularly informative, since it doesn't specify to which level of government this refers (Germany is a
federal state). While I agree that we should generally use the English equivalent of foreign-language terms, in this case translation not only fails to "capture the spirit of the term" (in Pavel Vozenilek's words), but completely obscures the meaning of the term. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Class A radio stations in North America
Category:Germany articles needing images
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was relist to
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Germany articles needing images to
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany
- Nominator's rationale: {{{3|It seems wasteful and higher maintenance to have these two categories largely duplicating each other. The latter is more consistent with hundreds of other similar categories for countries and regions, so I suggest that the former should be merged into the latter - this would require a change in {{
WikiProject Germany}} but not a massive amount of work. I suppose an argument can be made for making a distinction on the grounds of the name of the former category having a wider scope than the latter (to include biographies etc; also the former says "images" but in practice it appears in almost all cases this just means "photographs") but I am sure that just using the latter category for the lot won't be too confusing. Because of the way articles are sorted into both categories using templates, I don't think that making the photographs category a subcategory of the "images" one and making the images category for non-photographic images only is likely to work - for one thing the template by which articles are added to the "images" category doesn't "fine tune" in this way, and secondly, the vast majority of image requests made are for photographs (maps are dealt with differently and don't appear as requested images). I think a merger would make it easier both to use the categories and to maintain them.
TheGrappler
20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
I have left a note with
52 Pickup (
talk ·
contribs) to contribute to this CfD as he is the main contributer to {{
WikiProject Germany}}. He might be able to include a photocat parameter which would allow articles to be placed in subcategories by region similar to
Traveler100's idea.
Agathoclea
08:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Governor of the Turks and Caicos
Category:Second Ladies of the United States
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Second Ladies of the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is an unofficial title which doesn't even have the cover of a White House office that uses it the way one uses "First Lady." There's a complete list in the article
Second Lady of the United States which clarifies the unofficial nature of the appellation.
Otto4711
19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete per nom. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Does it need to be an official title to be a category? It seems like a potentially useful category to me, and certainly captures the defining essence of what makes many of these people historically notable. There is also a head article (
Second Lady of the United States) and an infobox. --
lquilter
21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Carlossuarez46
22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per lquitter's comments. No reason that category can't be used when title is unofficial but commonly applied. It is what makes most of those in the category notable.
Snocrates
23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per lquitter, and per I keep forgetting
Marilyn Quayle's first and last names. Clearly defined category, and defining for many so categorized. Also, I can imagine someone looking for these. /
edg
☺
★
00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep These women are notable: they have WP articles on them. Why are they notable? They are the vice president's wife. For many of them, this is the only occupational category they belong to.
Hmains
04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I was literally yawning as I went past this one. Then I stopped and came back for a more serious look. After all, just because the term "Second Lady" tends to sound a bit amusing, that is hardly a good reason not to keep a perfectly valid category. This category has impeccable parentage, with three parent cats of which it is an obvious sub-category. And for 17 of the 25 women, this very designation is really their only claim to
WP:Notability (the other 8 went on to become First Ladies). If that doesn't pass muster as a valid rationale for a category we must have fallen down the
rabbit hole.
Cgingold
10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Seems just as valid as
Category:Vice Presidents of the United States, albeit less commonly attributed in politinews.--
WaltCip
17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep (changing my !vote). If we have articles for these women, this is clearly a defining attribute of them. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per so-named article.
Doczilla
00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Computer-related events and awards
Category:Technical & Management Festivals
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Technical & Management Festivals to
Category:UNKNOWN
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, to somethimg with proper capitalisation and without the ampersand; or delete as too small a genre. (Note that the category is currently orphaned, so if kept it needs to be parented).
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Protoss
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Protoss (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Has only two articles in it, both of which are also in
Category:StarCraft. Category should be deleted.
Sabre
19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Zerg
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Zerg (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Has only two articles in it, both of which are also in
Category:StarCraft. Category should be deleted.
Sabre
19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Terrans (StarCraft)
Category:Organizations in the StarCraft universe
Category:StarCraft books
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:StarCraft books to
Category:StarCraft novels
- Nominator's rationale: There are many StarCraft related books, such as strategy guides and so on. This category only relates to the official fiction of the series, so renaming to
Category:StarCraft novels will make the name of the category more representative of its contents.
Sabre
19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Novels by David Weber
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was reverse merge
Category:Books by David Weber to
Category:Novels by David Weber. The current categorisation scheme for works by author may need revision, but such revision would require a fairly broad-based consensus or, at least, a more encompassing nomination. In the meantime, it seems best to merge these categories, as all of the entries in the "books by..." category are works of fiction. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Novels by David Weber to
Category:Books by David Weber
- Nominator's rationale:
1) Merge Novels to Books, consider this set-up and compare to
Category:Honorverse_books and structure of a similar LARGE series,
category:1632 series books;
2) recat
Category:Honorverse books as subcat of Books by David Weber, and that should also include the
Crown of Slaves anthologies series, etc.
3) Add parellel discussion if you'd be so kind on
Category:The Grantville Gazettes endorsing or opposing my decision to let the sub-cat exist, "solely because the bi-monthly canonical works will never see book format".
ref: SSGT Mike wrote in comment 8:
[1] “I am a die hard fan of the 16** series. When are all the short stoys in the Gazette going to be put out in a hardcover or softcover form? I do not have the abilty to down load the web books and would love to read all of them.”
Probably never, imao. The Gazette keeps churning them out electronically faster than Baen could hope to sell them in paper.
Still, if you subscribe to the Gazette, I’m sure someone out there could be persuaded to download the stories, print them out, and mail them to you.
Comment by Stephen M. St. Onge — September 9, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
There is a better reference by Flint himself that this one is echoing. [trust me! <evil BSEG>] // FrankB
Put it all together and this cat set-up strikes me as an unnecessary distinction between novels and books, plus the books in series issue. (I'd planned a similar discussion over
Category:The Grantville Gazettes which someone created. The difference there is the books category will never see many of those titles which with the "generally poor mass market" for anthologies, will remain solely as
e-zines, per
Eric Flint himself.) The category system here doesn't really support anthologies series as separated from novels save for one or two categories which are de facto lists, and fitting
The Grantville Gazettes into that structure has other problems as well.
In the case of
Books by David Weber the contents of the parent cat, list none of webers anthologies, nor his novels and is therefore, essentially empty but for the sub-categories. While technically correct, that's overcatting, imho—there is insufficient distinction to add the extra level, nor likelihood that other (non-fiction, etc.) varieties of books will populate such. Part of the complication here is the separate
Honorverse series category and yet another (justifiable) series books category
Category:Honorverse_books.
To my way of thinking, Books by _____ is the pentultimate correct one parent cat of any fiction books category, no matter its series relationship. All come under
WP:NOVELS. Thanks for the time. //
Fra
nkB
19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - These are novel categories and should stay so. The category "Books by" really says little for the literary form used in this categorization scheme. All fiction forms are divided by form, i.e. novel, short story, poems, plays, screenplays, etc. Leaving Books for non-fiction works of indeterminate literary form. Only articles and essays being current split out, if my memory serves me. Books is largely a statement of delivery medium and not every think written appears in a book, magazines, papers, comic, and not electronic formats. Books is not to supercategory, despite constant usage. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk)
09:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Having refreshed my memory about the Honorverse series it is a little awkward in that the types of writing and literary form change rather more than most series. So the main category to pull the various writings together "Should" be one called "Honorverse". In other words not one that currently separates out forms by author. ::
Kevinalewis :
(Talk Page)/
(Desk)
10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Suzue Miuchi's manga
Category:Humanitarian awards
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Humanitarian awards to
Category:Humanitarian and service awards
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, Propose renaming because service awards and humanitarian awards often overlap, thus suggesting a combined category is warranted. There is currently no category for "service awards", but as I've been clearing out the
Category:Awards I realized that the overlap in humanitarian & service awards and award recipients suggests in this instance a combined category would be more helpful than two separate ones.
lquilter
19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Stations of Nagoya Railroad
Category:Queens consort subcategories
Category:Solo projects
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Solo projects (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think really means something like "solo musical works by musicians who have previously been notable mostly for their work as part of a labelled group", which is very common ... and in any case, these things are often a matter of branding, because very few of these projects are actually completed by just one person.
NB This category is currently orphaned, so if it is to be kept in needs to be parented. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:LGBT-related events and awards
Category:Singing children
Category:Snugpak
Ambassadors
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep, except rename
Category:Iranian ambassadors to
Category:Ambassadors of Iran and rename
Category:Ambassadors of the South Africa to
Category:Ambassadors of South Africa. Feel free to propose the remaining categories for renaming under
speedy renaming criterion 4, per
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Political office-holders. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Propose renaming:
-
Category:Ambassadors of Cameroon to
Category:Ambassadors from Cameroon
-
Category:Ambassadors of Ethiopia to
Category:Ambassadors from Ethiopia
-
Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to
Category:Ambassadors from the European Union
-
Category:Ambassadors of France to
Category:Ambassadors from France
-
Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to
Category:Ambassadors from Indonesia
-
Category:Iranian ambassadors to
Category:Ambassadors from Iran
-
Category:Ambassadors of Norway to
Category:Ambassadors from Norway
-
Category:Ambassadors of Poland to
Category:Ambassadors from Poland
-
Category:Ambassadors of the South Africa to
Category:Ambassadors from South Africa
-
Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to
Category:Ambassadors from the Soviet Union
-
Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to
Category:Ambassadors from Turkey
-
Category:Ambassadors of the United States to
Category:Ambassadors from the United States
Following precedent of
this discussion and for consistency with other subcats of
Category:Ambassadors by country of origin. Of is more formal usage, but it is slightly ambiguous as to whether the ambassadors are from the country in question or were sent there as ambassadors.
LeSnail
18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I actually find "ambassadors of X" to be clearer than "ambassadors from X". With "from" I wonder whether we're talking about where the individual was born rather than, say, which country the ambassador is representing. --
lquilter
18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That reference was really about being consistent. So it does not really address the issue of of v from.
Vegaswikian
06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment since lquilter has stated there is ambiguity in the proposed names, what about Ambassadors for X or Amabassadors representing X ?
132.205.99.122
19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the existing nomenclature is correct in
International relations and diplomatic speak. If you use "from" that implies that they were born in that country which is often not the case - see
Madeline Albright as an example. I think some consultation - see
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/c4293.htm would be in order before making a speedy decision.
Mikebar
19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -- Most of our lists of ambassadors, such as
Ambassadors from the United States,
List of Ambassadors from Finland, etc. use "from", so if we decide that "of" is the proper form, these lists need to be moved too.
LeSnail
20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - "from" is more ambiguous than "of": e.g.,
Muhammad Asad, was an Ambassador of Pakistan, but he was from Austria-Hungary (now Ukraine).
Carlossuarez46
22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. "Of" is the technical correct terminology and is less confusing, to me anyway.
Snocrates
23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all except
Category:Iranian ambassadors which should be renamed to
Category:Ambassadors of Iran. If consensus here is to keep and use the of form, then this consensus should to be applied to the other forms and allow them to be renamed as a result of this nomination or simply via a speedy rename. No reason to really have a second multi category nomination.
Vegaswikian
06:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- comment - We should probably rename the parent category, too. The funny thing is that the parent category,
Category:Ambassadors by country of origin does, in fact, suggest the origination country of the individual people who happen to have been appointed ambassadors later in life. So "Ambassadors from Foo" would be correct based on that category, but probably nobody would really want this information compared to, say, "Ambassadors representing Foo" or "Ambassadors of Foo". ... So we should rename the parent category to something like, "[[:Category:Ambassadors by country of representation". --
lquilter
18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep An ambassador is the representative OF his government TO another government. The use of "from" would merely indicate their nationality. It would be unusual for a country to have an ambassador who was not one of theri nationals, but cannot be ruled out. However as suggested by
Vegaswikian, the Iranian category should be renamed to be consistent.
Peterkingiron
17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, rename Iran Of is better, per many above.
Johnbod
14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:St. Mark's Place
Category:Speech pathology
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename to
Category:Speech and language pathology, without prejudice to renominating to solicit additional discussion on deletion, merging, or renaming, especially if the title of the main article (which is currently a bit Anglocentric) changes. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
05:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Speech pathology (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete or rename or merge somewhere: I have no idea what to do with this orphaned category.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Speech and language pathology for consistency with the main article
Speech and language pathology that I have just added to the category. It seems like this is probably a useful category, and I have given it some adoptive parents now. It can probably be substantially enlarged.
LeSnail
18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per LeSnail, and thanks for finding parents.
Carlossuarez46
22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - A big pat on the back for LeSnail -- well, make that half a pat on the back (or maybe two-thirds). You're probably on the right track, but I'm afraid
Category:Speech synthesis was way off the mark -- it's for artificially synthesized speech. I've temporarily replaced that with
Category:Human voice, mainly so people can look at the other sub-cats there and perhaps figure out what to do, since this category appears to overlap with what already exists. I'm not sure if it should be merged, or perhaps it could serve as a parent for a couple of the other sub-cats. I'm short on time here, so... talk among yourselves and I will check back to see what ya'all come up with.
Cgingold
15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -- Hmm, I'm not sure I like that definition of "speech synthesis." It was certainly ambiguous enough to trick me. Also, I have just found
Category:Voice disorders, which should probably me merged with
Category:Speech pathology.
LeSnail
21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Super Friends characters
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was relist to
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Super Friends characters (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Hmmm. On the one hand we don't categorize super heroes by their team affiliation, which this is. On the other hand, we do categorize TV characters by the show, which this also is. Characters who appeared on the show but weren't created for it (like Superman, Batman, Aquaman and Wonder Woman) aren't categorized. So, leave as is? Delete? Rename to emphasize it's for characters created expressly for the show?
Otto4711
17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Adding another category to the likes of superman for every guest appearance is a no-no, because there could easily be dozens of such categories added. So I'd say delete unless the category can be restricted to characters who were either regulars of the show or created for the show. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. We don't categorize these characters by team membership and we don't categorize them by every single show in which they've appeared. Aside from Wendy, Marvin, and Wonder Dog (all three of whom share a single Wikipedia article), I doubt any characters created for the series even have their own articles.
Doczilla
21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Robotboy
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Robotboy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - following cleanup, category not needed. Everything is appropriately interlinked.
Otto4711
17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Powerpuff Girls
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:The Powerpuff Girls (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - everything in the category is appropriately interlinked through text and templates. Eponymous category isn't warranted.
Otto4711
16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:St. Lunatics members
Category:Johnny Bravo
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Johnny Bravo (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete small category, unlikely to expand. Material is appropriately interlinked.
Otto4711
16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Sources used by Livy
Category:Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - material is extensively interlinked through text and template, eponymous TV category not warranted.
Otto4711
16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Team Full Tilt
Category:San Francisco Bay Area activism
Category:SharePoint
Category:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
Category:Fictional characters created from adaptations of licensed media
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. The current title is not supported and no adequate alternative was offered or discussed. Interested editors are encouraged to investigate, especially as a collaborative effort, whether alternate means of categorisation are possible, necessary, and/or desirable. In the event that such investigation may be aided by knowledge of this category's contents prior to deletion, a list of such is available
here. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fictional characters created from adaptations of licensed media (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete, these characters have nothing to do with each other, I don't see this a defining characteristic. --
Prove It
(talk)
15:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, this category is for characters that were made for adaptions of licensed media (i.e. TV, Video Games and print) but are not (or were not) part of of the said licensed media. An example would be that Kiyone was park of the Tenchi Muyo anime but not in the manga, or Sawada was a character for Street Fighter the movie and the game based off said movie, but he was never in any of the official games. There isn't an exact term for it, but it's pretty common to add original characters that are not part of the offical storyline in adaptions, especially for cartoon adaptions. They have been doing it since the 1960s. Also there are categories like Comic book characters originally created in other media, that some of the characters created for television shows based off the comic book, didn't make it into the comic book, but are shoehorned in anyway. This needs to be kept.(
BackLash
18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
reply
- Delete (post-haste) - Categorization by licensing status is hopelessly jurisdiction-specific as it is based on copyright status. --
lquilter
22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom & per lquilter.
Carlossuarez46
22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - too loose of an association. As for the comics characters created in other media category, it should not include characters who haven't actually appeared in a comic book.
Otto4711
23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Lquilter
Mikebar
15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I remain confused: there seems to be no place on Wikipedia to sensibly characterise these characters. This seems to be a defining characteristic to me, if only because they don't have any others. Would it be more sensible to have several different categories, depending on the copyright holders: "Fictional characters created from adaptations of DC Comics", "Fictional characters created from adaptations of Marvel Comics", "Fictional characters created from adaptations of video games"... How narrow do the categories have to be in order to become "defining characteristics", and where do we categorise those narrow categories if we can't place them here? I remain confused. --
Supermorff
13:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I sympathize with your confusion. Not all attributes are defining qualities (which I agree is nebulous; BrownHairedGirl proposed a definition at (I can't find the link?). Moreover, some things are just inherently not good fits for "categories" because of the way the category software function works. Just to explain why they're not a good fit: Licensing and copyright status are not good fits for the category system, because they are jurisdiction-specific, they change very frequently, and assertions about legal status really should be documented. --
lquilter
15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Unfortunately I still don't follow. There are characters on Wikipedia whose only notable characteristic is that they appeared in or were introduced in, for example, the movie Batman. So therefore a defining characteristic is that they appeared in an adaptation of DC Comics, and thus that they appeared in an adaptation of a comic book, and thus that they appeared in an adaptation of licensed media. Perhaps at some point this logic breaks down, but I cannot see where or why this happens.
- I also don't really understand how this category can be jurisdiction specific. Batman is always an adaptation of DC Comics, in any jurisdiction. Characters are in this category based on their first appearance in media, which is not dependent on who owns them or owned them or held the license or copyright. Maybe there's some definition of "licensed media" that I don't understand, but if that's the case can't we just pick a different name and keep the purpose of the category intact? --
Supermorff
18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, what if the comic was public domain (as some Popeye comics now are). A new Popeye movie introduces a new character who cannot go ito this category because it is not "licensed".
- I'm trying to understand why this category is even useful. Is it to organize particular cross-media franchise characters? --
lquilter
15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- So a rename to, e.g. "category:Fictional characters from adaptations of published media", might solve the jurisdiction-specificity problem?
- I might point out that usefulness is not a good argument to use in these discussions (
WP:USEFUL), but essentially the answer is yes. Theoretically a comic book series could be adapted into a comic book series, or a television series into a television series... Any new characters would probably qualify, and it would not necessarily be cross-media. We could make it cross-media specific by a rename if that's preferable, but I assume not. (ED: Actually, interesting point. What constitutes an "adaptation", and what a "remake"? Is there a distinction? Maybe cross-media is implied.)
- It categorises characters according to the method of their creation and/or first appearance. If that's deemed encyclopedic then I guess the category stays, and if not then I guess it goes. It still needs to be renamed, though. --
Supermorff
13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:QTV
Category:Dexter's Laboratory
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Dexter's Laboratory (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV show category. After cleanup remaining material is interlinked and templatized.
Otto4711
15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Suhl
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge without prejudice to future recreation under the conditions specified below (i.e. when there are substantially more than 3 articles to categorise). Since appropriate subcategories exist for the articles
Suhl and
Ringberghaus, they have been relocated to
Category:Towns in Thuringia and
Category:Buildings and structures in Thuringia instead of the main parent category for Thuringia. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Suhl to
Category:Thuringia
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, 3-article category rescued from the orphanage, but the main article
Suhl suggests that there are not many other articles available to populate this category. It can be recreated if that situation changes.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cow and Chicken and I Am Weasel
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Cow and Chicken and I Am Weasel (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - category contains material for two separate but related series. Even combined, the material doesn't warrant categorization. Everything is interlinked appropriately.
Otto4711
14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Refus Global's co-signatories
Category:Class of 3000
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Class of 3000 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - material doesn't warrant category as it is all appropriately interlinked through the main article. Eponymous overcategorization for a series.
Otto4711
14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Billy and Mandy
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Billy and Mandy (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - following category clean-up, the remaining material doesn't warrant categorization. All extensively linked through text and template.
Otto4711
14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Quiz Books
Category:Lists of anime and manga characters
Category:Shows on Cartoon Cartoons
Category:Shows on Miguzi
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Shows on Miguzi (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization of show by arbitrary programming block, unless any of the shows were specifically developed for the programming block in which case rename to
Category:Miguzi original programs and prune.
Otto4711
14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Shows on Toonami
Category:Polish - Jewish relations
Category:Polish organisations in Australia
Category:Radiocommunications
Category:People from Crockett, Texas
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. As there does not seem to be a people by county category scheme for the United States, the new category will be located in
Category:People from Texas and
Category:Houston County, Texas. If any other suitable parent categories exist, please add them. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:People from Crockett, Texas to
Category:People from Houston County, Texas
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, the town of
Crockett, Texas has a population of only 7,000, which is probably one of the reasons this rescue-from-
the-orphanage category has only 1 member. The county has three times the population, so would be a better basis for categorisation; alternatively upmerge to
Category:People from Texas.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Chijon family
Category:Cancelled Virtual console games
Category:TTI Telecom
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. The product articles seem to have been deleted and the main article (even if kept) alone does not justify an eponymous category, per ample precedent. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:TTI Telecom to
Category:Telecommunications companies
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, orphaned eponymous category for small group of companies; main article
TTI Telecom just was blatant corporate advertising full of peacock terms, and tagged as {{
advert}}, so I have just deleted it as as corporate spam per
WP:CSD#G11.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and don't bother merging.
TTI Telecom is probably notable but its individual products are not. I proposed them for deletion several days ago and they'll likely be gone in a day or two leaving an empty category (or else a category of one if
TTI Telecom is restored. --
A. B.
(talk)
14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, if the main article survives afd, it can go in the proposed target - its products are telecommunications companies, so if they survive afd, they go elsewhere rather than a strict merge as proposed.
Carlossuarez46
22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Carly Schroeder images
Category:Haunted hospitals
Category:Hald0com Retrofits Variants
Category:List of Knight Rider episodes
Category:Contemporary Ceramics
Category:ESPN25's 25 Biggest Sports Flops
Category:Former nightclubs
Category:Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences
Category:Eikaiwa
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was relisting see
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13#Category:Eikaiwa.-
Andrew c
[talk]
02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Eikaiwa to
Category:to be determined by consensus
- Nominator's rationale: Eikaiwa is a Japanese term, not in common usage outside of Japan. Although we have an
Eikaiwa article, categories (as listed in
Category:Companies of Japan for example) should be named more conducively towards non-specialists. A discussion has taken place at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Capitalization which favors a non-Eikaiwa word, although the exact terminology can still be debated here.
Neier
10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename and, suggest rename to Language schools of Japan, as some schools teach many languages besides English. -
Neier
10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I'm fine with "Language schools of Japan", but as I am not too familiar with the eikaiwa world, I wonder: Is there a significant difference between eikaiwa companies/schools and other language schools, in their organization, teaching methods, etc? In other words, is there any reason to define eikaiwa separately as its own special category of language schools? If so, then I think we should enforce that difference in our naming.
LordAmeth
23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:English conversation schools in Japan. My understanding is that eikaiwa schools differ in that they only teach oral conversational skills—there is generally no study of written language at all; the focus is on helping people be able to converse in English. (The public school system's courses in English have more of an emphasis on English writing and grammar and being able to read English.) Also, the word "eikaiwa" in Japanese specifically describes a school that teaches English language conversation—an eikaiwa that teaches a language other than English is an oxymoron.
Snocrates
04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Eikaiwa refers to a particular type of object that is unique to Japan. In such cases, and since the article is located at
Eikaiwa, it is justifiable to use the original-language term. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tennessee conventions
Category:Supercentenarian trackers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. As all category members are linked from the article
Extreme longevity tracking, there is no need to listify. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Supercentenarian trackers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unsourced article in category space, and the term "Supercentenarian trackers" appears to be a neologism:
only three non-wikipedia ghits. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- From Wikipedia:"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions."
Ryoung122
07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: this category is USEFUL and serves a purpose of furthering the encyclopedic intent of Wikipedia. The name is not an issue; it can be renamed if need be. Further, the claim that this is an 'unsourced article' misses the point that:
A. the primary function is to link SIMILAR articles, mainly human biographies.
B. giving a little background history is useful.
Your nomination only serves to SUPPRESS useful information.
For example, did you know that
Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, also was involved in research into longevity?
[PDF] Human genetics of aging: the centenarians Human lifespan Mean ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Alexander Graham Bell (1918 study). •Examined birth/death records of decendants of ... Siblings of centenarians have higher survival, death ...
elegans.uky.edu/300_Spr06/Aging_Spr06_Lect14.pdf - Similar pages
This included
supercentenarian cases such as
Ann Pouder, featured in National Geographic in 1917.
Do you delete a category such as 'American doctors'? 'Supercentenarian trackers' is TWO words, not one. If there are
supercentenarians and there are scientists as well as amateurs involved in their 'tracking,' then it makes sense. By the way, I wasn't the first to use these two words in combination; it came from French demographer
Jean-Marie Robine more than seven years ago.
Ryoung122
12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- Comment: 'Useful to a Wikipedia reader' and 'useful to someone in certain circumstances' is NOT the same concept. I note that
WP:USEFUL gives examples such as:
list of all the phone numbers in New York
Which is useful to those who might be interested in finding someone in New York...but not to Wikipedians in general.
A category: supercentenarian trackers (or researchers) is generalizable to everyone and includes only those persons who are 'notable' already. 'One in 10 million' and '10 million out of 10 million' aren't the same degrees of 'notability'.
Ryoung122
13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- ReplyThe field began in the 1870's. Today you can see that it is a legitimate field that employs scientists and includes studies funded by both the U.S. and international governments and private industry:
http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505
http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/index.htm
http://www.grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2007.0602?journalCode=rej
But the material doesn't focus on 'just' the supercentenarians themselves; there is also 'supercentenarian theory' and the 'cult of centenarians':
Bernard Jeune and James W. Vaupel (eds.) Validation of Exceptional ...author puts it, is the fascination for the ‘cult of centenarians’. In the subsequent. chapter Petersen and Jeune provide further evidence of this ...
www.springerlink.com/index/NHJ68773X42K88H8.pdf - Similar pages
Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Age Validation of ...In the present monograph Peter Laslett calls this phenomenon the cult of centenarians, aptly describing the apparently widespread tendency to accept wildly ...
www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/03.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Species of Evidence of ...The cult of centenarians in the 17th and 18th centuries ... In this volume Laslett elaborates on this fascination, which he calls the cult of centenarians. ...
www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/01.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
JSTOR: Validation of Exceptional LongevityLaslett, for example, refers to "the cult of centenarians" to describe the complete loss of critical perception in the face of the emotional fascination ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(200006)26%3A2%3C403%3AVOEL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y - Similar pages
JSTOR: Validation of Exceptional LongevityMuch of the work is written about disputing the 'cult of centenarians' that existed in many countries for the last few centuries. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-0526(2000)49%3A4%3C627%3AVOEL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F - Similar pages
If you'd like this to be renamed "supercentenarian researcher" I'd be fine with that. Many of the names come from Europeans for whom English is a second language and the words they choose...'cult of centenarians,supercentenarian tracker'...may not 'catch on' in America.
But even if there is a need for an article (apparently there is), there is also a need for a category for similar articles for those whose job it is includes finding/locating/tracking the world's oldest people. While long a 'scientific backwater' the field has grown tremendously in the past 7 years (as has "Wikipedia"). Should we delete "Wikipedia" because we can't find it in a dictionary from 1993?
Ryoung122
13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- (masses of irrelevant text deleted). Please read
WP:TPG, and please don't use CfD to discuss sources for an article. Thanks --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
--centenarian researchers (such as Tom Perls, Leonard Poon, etc)
--supercentenarian trackers (such as Louis Epstein)(list compilers)
--maximum lifepan researchers (such as Fries et al)(theorists)
If one took the time to study this, they'd realize that, in reality, this has been an area of inquiry/investigation for centuries. However, much of the literature remains in 'book' format. I'm attempting to transfer much of the past history to Wikipedia, and this is just in its infancy. Also, to be pro-active, I'd suggest we start a 'project: supercentenarians'. I note there are already over 150 articles in Wikipedia involved in this project. But it's not enough to 'cite supercentenarians' without educating the public as to the THEORY and HISTORY behind it. Given the costs to healthcare of false/fictious claims, as well as the relationship between myth-making, literacy, and record-keeping, it doesn't seem like too much to ask that we do this now. I note that experts predict that by 2050, the USA and Japan alone will have more than 1,000 living persons aged 110+ (living at the same time), assuming no major scientific breakthroughs between now and then.
The real point of this category is to link the relevant articles.
Ryoung122
06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I'm going to say this: The majority of 'gerontologists' are social or public policy persons, who deal with issues such as 'quality of life' for elders, elder care, Medicare and Medicaid funding, etc. A minority are involved in 'biogerontology', the study of the biology of aging.
- Also, the study of 'centenarians' is listed as a sub-field on the Gerontology Society of America website:
-
https://onlinedb.geron.org/CVWeb/GSA/cgi-bin/memberdll.dll/OpenPage
- GSA maintains a listing of its members' areas of expertise. It is used when the media, policymakers, researchers, etc. want to speak with experts on a particular aging topic. By selecting your own areas of expertise from the categories on the right, your name will become part of the database and you may be contacted by these parties.
- The listing of categories is in alphabetical order, and includes 'centenarians'. I do wonder who is the expert here, the GSA or Wikipedia...
Ryoung122
12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If (per Ryoung122's evidence) this is a sub-field of gerontology, then a simple solution is to to upmerge to
Category:Gerontologists, which is a very lightly-populated category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. ALL of the above comments by Orderinchaos are, flatly, INCORRECT. I do see merging into category:gerontologists as an acceptable solution, and make this a subcategory. I note persons such as:
[PDF] Human genetics of aging: the centenarians Human lifespan Mean ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Alexander Graham Bell (1918 study). •Examined birth/death records of decendants of ... Siblings of centenarians have higher survival, death ...
elegans.uky.edu/300_Spr06/Aging_Spr06_Lect14.pdf - Similar pages
Primarily the inventor of the telephone, yet his 1918 study of 'centenarians' claimed that
Ann Pouder, at 110, was the real thing. She was featured in a 1917 issue of National Geographic. Clearly, AG Bell was far better known for inventing the telephone, and yet his part-time approach to this study nonetheless kept a discipline alive and he is still being cited some 90 years later. Note also that
William Thoms had a triple career, as a politician, as a folklorist, and as an investigator of supercentenarian claims. His seminal work, "Human Longevity: Its Facts and Fictions" (1879) is considered the foundational start to this sub-field, although if one reads a book such as this:
Exceptional Longevity: From Prehistory to the PresentB. Jeune. 3. The Evolution of Human Longevity from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages: An Analysis Based on Skeletal Data. J.L. Boldsen and R.R. Paine ...
www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/2/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages
Then they will realize that 'supercentenarian tracking' has been going on for as long as some people claimed great ages and others were interested in keeping track of them...perhaps starting with the ancient Babylonians. Thus, this is 'not' a neologism, not a 'new' field. But it is a rapidly growing field. By the year 2050, both the USA and Japan are expected to have over 1,000,000 centenarians each, with a population of 1,000+ at the 'supercentenarian' level. However, the real purpose of study is not in bulk but in extremity, to find why some humans live longer than others, and why some don't...and also to find out what limiting factors are preventing humans from attaining, say, age '150'. We can't know that unless we study it.
72.158.38.41
10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename. This appears to be a valid category to me, but the name is a neologism.
Category:Gerontologists would be an appropriate supercategory, but there is clearly a distinction here between people who study aging in general and people who research specific individuals who are old and their claims thereto. The individuals in this category are united by their interest, not so much in the causes of aging and of not dying, but in the facts and verification of individuals who reach advanced age. There are several possible non-neologistic titles that could be used in place of the current title.
Powers
T
14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify or keep/rename, but don't delete. Not really OR.
Johnbod
15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I have now set up as
Extreme longevity tracking, and if the category is kept
Category:Extreme longevity trackers would be better.
Johnbod
16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I had thought it was the use of the word "tracking"/"trackers" that was controversial here, not "supercentenarian". The latter even has an article.
Powers
T
16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I don't entirely see that, but am open to a rename of the artixcle after this closes.
Johnbod
16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Ironically, prompted by
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker), I started
supercentenarian tracking. It seems to me that
supercentenarian tracking and
extreme longevity tracking could be merged.
Carcharoth
17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Your complete disrespect for the subject, given other comments made to the Louis Epstein AFD debate, really contrasts with your creation of mixed-martial arts articles. Funny: science=bad, fighting=good. Makes sense to me. Oh wait, no it doesn't. But that's why you're called 'Mad Lord Anarchy', right?
Ryoung122
09:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Valerii Flacci
Category:Vice mayors
Category:Western Pacific Railroad Museum
Category:Water Truck Pumps
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete; the sole member already appears in the target. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Water Truck Pumps to
Category:Firefighting equipment
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category, rescue from the orphanage, limited potential for growth unless it to be used to categorise all the difft models of firefighting vehicle, and I don't know if we have any such articles so far.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Urban context photographers
Category:Urban tunnel
Category:UK Thrash
Category:Ullensaker
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep. –
Jerazol (
Talk) 20:52, 9 November 2007 (CET)
- Suggest merging
Category:Ullensaker to
Category:Akershus
- Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per
WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. This is a category for the commune of
Ullensaker in
Norway, and contains only 3 articles. Those articles are alredy linked from the main article
Ullensaker, and the category shoukd be upmerged to the county
Category:Akershus.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think this category has potential for growth and should not be merged into Akershus. Ullensaker kommune is a rapidly growing area as the result of the new airport at
Gardermoen which is now the largest airport in Norway. This leads to greater international interest in Ullensaker. The Norwegian version of the category listing already has 44 entries and one subcategory and is growing. I've added a link to the Norwegian version of the Ullensaker category page. --
Jutulen
15:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reply I would expect a Norwegian a category to be more heavily populated on no.wikipedia, but as of now it seems that we agree there aren't more articles on Ullensaker. The category can of course be recreated if/when the situation changes. Additionally, I didn't see any caegories for communes in Norway. Is this the only one, or are the others just not in a communes category? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom; insufficient articles at the county level to break down by municipality.
Carlossuarez46
23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I've searched through WP and added articles which I find appropriate for the category. It now contains 15 articles, which imo should be more than enough to make this category worth keeping. There's also the precedence of the categories Category:Asker and Category:Bærum which doesn't seem to contain any more articles than what Ullensaker now does, and which have already existed for a year and a half.
Jerazol
06:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country.
- To claim that the category Ullensaker will never have more than a few members is inaccurate. The category now has 10 articles and the Norwegian content of the Wikipedia is growing. Therefore it's inaccurate to claim it will ...never have more than a few members
- Also Ullensaker is part of a ...large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Norway is divided into 19 administrative regions called "fylker" (equivalent to county) and a complete list is available at:
Category:Municipalities_of_Norway. Each of the fylke are then subdivided into "kommuner" and in the case of Akershus there are 22 such municipalities
Category:Municipalities_of_Akershus of which
Ullensaker is one.
- Since the rationale for merging is not met the category should be kept as is.
-
Jutulen
06:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Units based on multiples of 12
Category:Wilson Sporting Goods Equipment
XML
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was upmerge all. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose upmerging
- Nominator's rationale:. Upmerge all. These were orphaned categories which I found at
Special:Uncategorizedcategories and have parented in
Category:XML, they don't seem to fit wit the general structure of
Category:XML. Additionally, the "Validation" one has incorrect capitalisation and overlaps with the "validator" category. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Yugoslav music Hall of Fame
Category:Hi-Bird
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy delete as empty. Please note that per
WP:CSD#C1 empty categories can be speedy deleted simply by tagging them with {{
db-emptycat}}, and they will be zapped if still empty after 4 days. This involves less work for the nominator and for everyone else :) --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hi-Bird (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Empty category.
Brianhe
05:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Murder victims of Operation Condor
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename to
Category:People killed in Operation Condor and
Category:People killed in the Dirty War. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming:
-
Category:Murder victims of Operation Condor to
Category:Victims of Operation Condor
-
Category:Murder victims of the Dirty War to
Category:People killed in the Dirty War
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Murder" seems too POV. Although the people in question were killed unjustly, calling a government action "murder" does not seem correct. --
Eliyak
T·
C
03:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment. "People killed in the Dirty War" makes it sound more like a regular war, which it wasn't. See this from the article "
Dirty War":
The term "Dirty War" originates in the military junta itself, which claimed that a war, albeit with "different" methods (including the large-scale application of torture), was necessary to maintain social order. This explanation has been questioned in court and by human rights NGOs, as it suggests that a "civil war" was going on, thereby implying justification for the killings. Thus, during the 1985 Trial of the Juntas, public prosecutor Julio Strassera suggested that the term "Dirty War" was a "euphemism to try to conceal gang activities" as though they were legitimate military activities.[3] Although the junta claimed its objective to be the eradication of guerrilla activity, the repression struck mostly the general population, and specifically all political opposition, trade unionists (half of the victims), students, and other civilians.
It was a one-sided death squad operation. "
Extrajudicial killings" would be more accurate, and less controversial, than "Murder victims". "Victims" is not very good, because it could be confused with "
collateral damage" deaths, and famine deaths of war, and other
civilian deaths in most wars. But these Dirty War deaths were targeted killings. --
Timeshifter
04:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I can see what you are saying. On the other hand there is
Category:Massacres in Vietnam,
My Lai massacre,
Category:Massacres in Israel, etc.. After further thought, "
extrajudicial killings", may not work, since some of the killing may have had the veneer of some executive decree. I believe I read of such decrees for the Argentina Dirty War. --
Timeshifter
16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Argentina Dirty War
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge as nominated. The article
Dirty War is about the violence in Argentina; more generally, Dirty War refers specifically to Argentina. There may be other conflicts/events which could be classed as "dirty wars" (though whether it is
appropriate to call them that depends on the sources), but they would belong in
Category:Dirty wars. When the word "war" is capitalised in this context, it refers to the dirty war in Argentina. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Argentina Dirty War to
Category:Dirty War
- Nominator's rationale: Merge, recently created category seems to duplicate older category.
Eliyak
T·
C
03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep category. The Dirty War in Argentina is just one
dirty war of many.
Operation Condor was a multinational dirty war, and operated in many nations, and used many similar methods. See this August 2001 English article from
Le Monde Diplomatique:
"Latin America: the 30 years’ dirty war" (see also:
free access in French and
in Portuguese). See also:
"Mexican 'Dirty War' Case Nears Court". 13 October 2007,
Washington Post. I also started a section at
Talk:Dirty War. --
Timeshifter
05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge - In addition to being an improper category name (it should be "Argentine Dirty War"), this category creation smacks of some back-end politics (and
original research) via categorizing. The head article is on the
Dirty War, meaning the Argentine Dirty War, which is what is commonly thought of as "the" Dirty War. At any rate, there's been discussion on that page before now, too, about the appropriate use of the term that will do better justice to the topic and its nuances than we would on CFD. Let's let the category structure follow the article(s), and not engage here in the politics of the use of "dirty war" as a descriptive term versus "Dirty War" as the Argentine conflict. When there are multiple articles on other dirty wars and the use of the term then we can figure out if some disambiguation in category names is appropriate. At best this CFD should be held off until discussion there comes to consensus. --
lquilter
18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I believe they have had the broader meaning of the term "Dirty War" in the article before, but it was deleted. They probably did not know of the mainstream media articles like the ones I listed. Let us leave the category alone until the new info I introduced on the talk page is discussed. It serves little purpose to get rid of the category unnecessarily before that discussion. As for the category name I did a search on Google before creating the category name, and "Argentina Dirty War" (as a phrase) is far more used than "Argentine Dirty War." If after discussion the editors there want a different category name we can come back here. I am now leaning toward "Dirty War in Argentina", "Dirty War in Mexico", etc.. This avoids problems deciding between "Argentinian Dirty War" versus "Argentine Dirty War", etc.. Plus it is easier for non-native speakers of English to figure out the categories. I have found many more articles on Google about the dirty war in Mexico. The Google results include articles from the mainstream media such as the
BBC,
Christian Science Monitor,
New York Times,
Knight-Ridder,
MSNBC, etc.. See:
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=Dirty+War+Mexico
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=Mexican+Dirty+War --
Timeshifter
01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- On "Argentine x" versus "Argentinian x" etc. I believe that in the category name we would go with the proper grammar regardless of common usage, and certainly all the other Argentine x categories use the proper grammar so it's also a matter of consistency with the category structure. --
lquilter
16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You have a point there. If "Argentine x" is better grammatically than "Argentinian x" than we should go with it. Better yet in my opinion is to use "Dirty War in Argentina." Then there is less confusion all the way around. --
Timeshifter
05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- On the question of whether "Dirty War" should specifically reference the Argentine Dirty War or "Dirty Wars" generally, again, I think we should keep status quo until there are other articles on other dirty wars requiring us to look for ways to create clarity in the category names. Right now there seems to be simply a political stance that "dirty wars" are a set of methods that have been broadly employed, and that we should not have Argentine exceptionalism. That's a perfectly reasonable political position, but it doesn't reflect common usage as far as I know, or Wikipedia consensus. So I think we ought to leave it be until (a) there are other articles creating the potential for confusion, or (b) there is consensus on relevant talk pages about defining "dirty war" in some non-Argentine-specific fashion. --
lquilter
16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia reflects common usage, not the other way around. Common usage has expanded the meaning of the term "Dirty War" over time. NOW it is common usage in many articles in the mainstream media to use it to describe many wars. It is political to ignore this. And how exactly are the MAINSTREAM media taking a political stance by using this term in its common usage? Common usage commonly changes over time. It would be against common usage for wikipedia to go backward. --
Timeshifter
05:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Dude, I agree we should go with whatever the current usage is. I just think that it's going to be weird if we have a debate about it here on CFD, while the
Dirty War article still keeps going on about this; we could end up with inconsistent results. And if we're trying to pick out who's in a better position to assess consensus, then I think the people working on that page all the time could develop the right references to figure out whether sufficient mainstream media adoption has taken place or not, and CFD should follow the article. --
lquilter
16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think they want to write an article about the Argentine Dirty War, and we should let them. "Dirty War" is already used in other ways on Wikipedia. See
Military of Mexico#Mission. See also this google search of wikipedia:
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+%22dirty+war%22 --
Timeshifter
19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think that Google search helps your argument. The top 10 hits include 6 categories about "the" dirty war (meaning the Argentine conflict) including the top-level category
Category:Dirty War; the article
Dirty War (Argentine again); the category you created and are defending (
Category:Argentina Dirty War); an article about a film; and an article
Chile under Pinochet which confuses me but is perhaps liked because of Pinochet's links to the Argentine issue. The Mexican military reference does use that phrase and suggests it was used in the 1960s. That should be referenced, but it's definitely evidence of broader usage (although not necessarily evidence of broader usage in English, today).--
lquilter
20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I pulled out a few of the non-Argentina-related uses of the phrase in wikipedia articles in my comment farther down. --
Timeshifter
20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge the other way All the articles I've looked at in the DW cat are about Argentina only, but I think Cat:DW is useful, even if only as an empty head cat for the subs.
Johnbod
14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The problem is that that is an expression of a political perspective. "The Dirty War" refers to Argentina, and extrapolating from that to describe similar tactics in other conflicts as "dirty wars" is not yet common usage. I am very sympathetic with the political goals and analyses, but IMO it is jumping the gun to institute this usage on wikipedia at this point. The
Dirty War talk page makes it clear that this is a hot political issue, raising NPOV problems. Since by far the commonest usage of "Dirty War" is to refer to the Argentine conflict, that's the best way (IMO) to avoid the NPOV issues. Again, I say this despite my sympathies with the POV in question. --
lquilter
16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You are the one seeming to make this political. There is no "hot political issue" about it on the talk page. It has barely been discussed. To deny the mainstream media usage of the term is political on your part. It has nothing to do with whether you or I are sympathetic to anything. It is all about CURRENT common usage. --
Timeshifter
06:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Based on looking at
Talk:Dirty War this seems to have been a controversial subject. It looks like more than half of the 38KB talk page is dedicated to this subject. I am simply suggesting that we wait for concensus on that page about whether common usage has turned or not, because that page is more likely to adequately document the question and that would be the head article. --
lquilter
16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Your analysis of the talk page is disingenuous. They were arguing over whether to use the phrase "Dirty War" in the article title. There was very little discussion about other dirty wars. Other dirty wars were only mentioned in passing, and no one disagreed that there were uses of the phrase in reference to other nations. I brought up substantial discussion of the issue only in the last few days. It is clear to me that up to now these editors have been focussed almost exclusively on the Argentine Dirty War, and have enough problems producing an article concerning that. I found a Wikipedia article that uses the phrase "Dirty War" in reference to Mexico. See
Military of Mexico#Mission. --
Timeshifter
19:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "Disengenuous"? I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I simply have a different read on what's been going on on that talk page than you, but I'm not trying to be deceitful. (Nor am I accusing you of such.) From my reading, that talk page includes a number of conversations about whether "dirty war" should be used generically or Argentine-specifically, and how disambiguations should be handled. I saw multiple people making your point, and multiple comments in response from people that "Dirty War" was used in English primarily to refer to the Argentine Dirty War. But people can judge for themselves.
Talk:Dirty War. --
lquilter
20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, people can judge for themselves. In any case I have found many more examples of the phrase "dirty war" being used on wikipedia in a non-Argentine context. See my comment farther down. So it is also common usage on wikipedia, too. --
Timeshifter
20:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. I did a dictionary search on google:
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Adirty+war
- One of the definitions found:
(n) dirty war (an offensive conducted by secret police or the military of a regime against revolutionary and terrorist insurgents and marked by the use of kidnapping and torture and murder with civilians often being the victims) "thousands of people disappeared and were killed during Argentina's dirty war in the late 1970s"
- It was from
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dirty%20war --
Timeshifter
13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Some non-Argentine results below from
this google search of wikipedia for the phrase "dirty war":
-
Military of Mexico#Mission
-
Dirty War (film)
-
Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación
-
Joseph Fenton
-
Operation Charly
-
Dirty bomb
-
First Indochina War
-
Sierra Leone Civil War
-
The 33 Strategies of War
-
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
-
Angolan Civil War
-
David Stoll
-
Human rights in Sri Lanka
-
Ulster Volunteer Force
-
Movimento das Forças Armadas
-
Leahy Law
-
United States-Colombia relations
-
Iran-Contra Affair
- These are preliminary results. Many more Google results to review.--
Timeshifter
20:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:State terrorism methods
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
19:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:State terrorism methods to
Category:Government oppression
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category was created around the same time as
Category:State terrorism, which was deleted for having an ill-defined and controversial name. I would like to suggest that "Government oppression" is easier to identify than "state terrorism," and that this is what the category deals with. --
Eliyak
T·
C
04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:State terrorism victims
Category:Transport Specialists from Afghanistan
Category:US Presidential Elections with Differing Electoral and Popular Vote Winners
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:US Presidential Elections with Differing Electoral and Popular Vote Winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete, small little potential for growth.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nominated. If kept, it would need to be renamed to something like
Category:United Stated Presidential elections where the popular vote count and the Electoral College vote count had different individuals with majorities.
Vegaswikian
02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete although a list might be a good idea, or an article on the US popular vote, which we don't seem to have.
Johnbod
03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above. By the way, this one also happens to be incorrectly capitalized.
Doczilla
06:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per the excellent reasoning of the nom. No need for a list article as each of the elections in question is linked in
United States Electoral College. That article looks about ready to split and as part of that split more info on the elections can be added to the resultant sub-article.
Otto4711
12:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - way too specific an attribute to be a useful category name. Which is apparent from the name, which is an intersection of attributes but with only one likely parent (US elections). --
lquilter
18:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify
132.205.99.122
19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Carlossuarez46
23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Turners Falls, Massachusetts
Category:Transportation terminology