December 26
ROC
Category:Bank of China Limited
Category:Webby Awards 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.
the wub
"?!"
14:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Webby Awards winners (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Another award that is not defining for those who receive it. If we really need the information, then listify.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:14, 26 December 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:Production I.G.
Provinces of South Korea sub-category
Category:Burger restaurants
Category:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp
- 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
"?!"
15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp to
Category:Ruhleben prisoner of war camp
-
Category:POW at Ruhleben to
Category:Prisoners at Ruhleben prisoner of war camp
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per
WP:NCCAT. Parent category is
Category:Prisoner of war camps not
Category:P.O.W. camps or
Category:POW camps. Not sure if name of camp is a proper noun and should be capitalized; I've opted for not, but it probably could go the other way.
Snocrates
21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both - Overcategorization. No other WWI POW camps have categories, and no other WWI POWs are categorized by camp. The names are already listed in the main article. I don't see this as sufficiently noteworthy to justify categories.
Cgingold (
talk)
05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both POWs shouldn't be categorized by camp, many no doubt had tenures at various way-point camps as well as the camp in which the majority of their detention occurred. For the camp itself, perhaps a conglomeration of WWI camps, but not each individually.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as "P.O.W.". While the expansion of the name is sensible, there is no real consistency across the sub-categories right now (e.g.
Category:Japanese POW and internment camps. etc.) As it stands it matches the name of the relevant article. Personally I don't have a particular problem with it not matching, but if we are going to tidy one up then all should be done, and that includes the main article as well. (There are 100s of other POW camp categories - hopefully we'll get some more WW1 camp articles added to WP in due course, the Ottoman ones in particular. However Ruleben really warrants its own category as it was most unusual, in that it held a large number of notable civilian internees.)
Ephebi (
talk)
22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank71
16:12, 26 December 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:United States Army radars
- 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.
the wub
"?!"
15:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:United States Army radars to
Category:Military radars of the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Someone recently incorrectly sub-categorized all US military radars from
Category:Military Radars (currently nominated for speedy renaming to
Category:Military radars) to
Category:United States Army radars. As these were not US Army radars, I was initially going to revert the changes. However, after thinking about it, I think it's better to rename the category to cover all US military branches. My reasons are:
1. There are only 21 articles total of which (roughly) 10 relate to the US Army, 9 to the US Air Force, and 3 to the US Marine Corps. Given the low number of articles, a single category for all US military services seems sufficient to me. If we have significant articles at a later date, sub-categorization could be added at that time.
2. Several of these radars were used by more than one service. While these could be handled by applying multiple categories, given #1, a single category makes it easier.
Thanks. --
JLaTondre
15:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support. *Cough*... That "someone" was yours truly - I misconstrued the category as referring to the US armed forces in general. (Sorry!) Note also there are other categories (Ground radars, Sea radars, Aircraft radars, etc.) that do a much better job of describing a particular radar, without referring to a particular military branch.
GregorB (
talk)
15:53, 26 December 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:Factions in Total War series
Category:Torah figures
Category:Sports in Mobile
Category:Parks in Mobile
Category:Subdivisions of Algeria
Category:Libertarian weblogs
- 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
"?!"
15:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Libertarian weblogs (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted for the same reason the Liberal weblogs and Conservative weblogs categories were deleted back in March 2007. See
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_28#Category:Ideological_publications for the deletion discussion for those categories.
Skylights76 (
talk)
04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and previous decision.
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk)
09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Libertarian was not among the political labels deleted in the link you provide. Liberal & conservative are typically deleted because they are vague terms that are particularly controversial in the US and used differently through history and in other places. I haven't seen that rationale applied to Libertarian, and again, Libertarian wasn't discussed in that earlier discussion. That discussion cited "POV" and controversial as applied to people; I'm not sure that would apply to Libertarian, which is a discrete and well-defined political ideology that doesn't seem used as a pejorative (the problem with "liberal" and to a lesser extent "conservative"). Could the nominator please address what the reason for deletion should be, and not simply say "for the same reason"? Also, what is the proposal to do with the items in this category? Upmerge to undifferentiated parents? The parent categories are "political weblogs" and "libertarianism" and, in my view, both need this kind of separation. --
Lquilter (
talk)
15:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reply - There is plenty of controversy about the term "libertarian." For example,
left-libertarianism and
right-libertarianism are in most ways diametrically opposed, yet proponents still call themselves libertarian. Also, many who would generally be recognized as libertarians do not self-identify as libertarian, like some
classical liberals, or are even opposed to libertarianism, such as
objectivists. As such, anyone categorizing an article under libertarian weblogs would be promoting their POV as to what libertarianism actually is. If you look at the category, you'll see that this is clearly the case, with such disparate inclusions as, on the one hand, the
neoconservative-alligned
Ace of Spades HQ and
Protein Wisdom, and on the other hand the classical liberal
LewRockwell.com and
Liberty and Power. And there is another POV problem. The fact that libertarian weblogs is now the sole ideological subcategory of
Category:Political weblogs creates the impression that a POV is being pushed. In fact, it does provide the opportunity for people to promote such a ideological POV without competition from other ideologies which have no subcategories.
- After the category is deleted, the items can simply be recategorized under political weblogs (where the "liberal" and "conservative" weblogs were previously recategorized) if they aren't already there. There aren't that many, and two of them aren't even weblogs. --
Skylights76 (
talk)
20:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, that's pretty persuasive for the political weblogs category and also for the point in general. What about the "Libertarianism" category of which "weblogs" is a subcategory? --
Lquilter (
talk)
15:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, the weblogs shouldn't be categorized under "Libertarianism," for all the reasons already stated. (You'll notice, too, that there are no weblogs categorized under
Category:Liberalism or
Category:Conservatism.) The only thing I would suggest is that "Political weblogs" be categorized under "Politics" and "Political media" (in addition to its current categories) so it's a bit easier to find. --
Skylights76 (
talk)
04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Agree with the other subcats, of course. It seems a little strange to have a "political works" category but not to categorize the works by ideology. I'm also not quite used to thinking of "Libertarian" as presenting the same problems as "liberal" and "conservative". Still, your points are good. I'm undecided, still. --
Lquilter (
talk)
07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I had thought about that, but if it were kept, it would still be the only ideological subcategory under "Political weblogs," and thus would effectively be pushing a POV. We could have other subcategories with weblogs self-identifying as that particular ideology, but that's already been rejected in previous discussions. Besides, just because someone says they're libertarian doesn't mean they really are (e.g. Bill Maher has said he is, but others dispute this). --
Skylights76 (
talk)
05:36, 29 December 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:Marshals of Yugoslavia
Category:Christianity-related controversies
- 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.
JERRY
talk
contribs
14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Christianity-related controversies (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: One could honestly include almost anything in this category here; it is far, far too broad. I don't think that this is an encyclopedic tool that will help us build a better Wikipedia.
אמר
Steve Caruso
02:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There's nothing wrong with the category. The problem is that
68.123.72.85 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) is randomly adding things to it. --
B (
talk)
03:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Too vague, non-defining.
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk)
09:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep Nominator does not offer any alternative to group any/all these subcats and articles together. Like any system of belief, there are controversies. This is the properly named category for such articles here. The category is very specific: Christianity-related controversies is specific. It is also part of a properly organized set of such categories in
Category:Religious controversies
Hmains (
talk)
03:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. We've gone through this before. "Controversy" is subjective.
Doczilla (
talk)
08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but needs cleanup/division into subcategories so it's clearer just what it's meant to include.
Terraxos (
talk)
01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete a mishmosh of any article where there is a "controversy" (to whom?) and something "related" to Christianity. Why not toss
George W. Bush into the cat, because he's controversial (to many) and related to Christianity (so he claims).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Yes, it is is mishmash and not well defined. Perhaps it contains some inappropriate items (e.g. one about Harry Potter), but that is a reason for cleaning it up (by removing the inappropriate). It may also be useful to create some more subcategories or perhaps to add text with "see also" items (which might enable all General Councils of the Church to be removed). However, there are issues about which Christians sincerely disagree: that makes them controversial issues, so that they are properly in this category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Category:Croatian Homeland war people