- 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.
Kbdank71
14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Category:Civil wars (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose renaming to
Category:Civil wars and conflicts
- Nominator's rationale: To encompass both full-scale civil wars and smaller-scale civil conflicts -- of which there are already a number of subcategories and articles included in this parent category. This would also be in line with the proposed renaming of
Category:African Civil Wars below.
Cgingold
23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment how small a conflict?
70.55.201.4
20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Tentative oppose - it seems a lot fuzzier than the original category to me. —
xDanielx
T/
C
03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Civil war is the normal term. "Civil conflict" could have a huge variety of meanings - it could mean having a disagreement with your local council, for instance, which is not really the same thing. --
Necrothesp
08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Well, it's true that "civil war" is the "normal term" for a full-scale civil war. However, there are already three subcategories (with a possible fourth for African conflicts), and also four articles, in
Category:Civil wars that use the term "civil conflict" -- as well as quite a few articles that use neither term but also appear to deal with conflicts that don't qualify as full-scale civil wars. As things currently stand, most or all of these would need to be removed from this category if we were to apply the sort of standard that's discussed in the article
Civil war.
As for the definitional issue, I honestly don't see that as being a serious concern. I mean, how many people are actually going to be silly enough to think that "a disagreement with your local council" equates to a "civil conflict"? Even if something of that sort were to happen on rare occasion, it's simple enough to remove them, just as we do with any improperly categorized article. Moreover, the Category page can state very clearly that a small-scale "civil disturbance" does not rise to the level of a "civil conflict". So I really don't think this category would attract a larger number of inaptly categorized articles than it does currently.
Cgingold
13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Firstly, the category is not tagged, which it should be. I suggested widening the African category below to this term, so matching the English one, but (perhaps perversely) I'm not so sure about doing this generally. The nature of these conflicts in Africa is rather different, and the dividing line harder to draw. In the case of England, we just have more detailed articles than for many other countries. Most of the sub-cats of this category cover specific wars, which is neat and easy to understand. If we widened the scope, many countries would need a "by country" sub-cat, & we would end up with rather too many small local riots I think - in Africa these just don't get articles so it isn't a problem. There is also category
Category:Guerrilla wars,
Category:Rebellion, and the daddy of them all
Category:Conflict, and ones for riots etc. I think it might be better to collect all of these, for ease of navigation, into an extra "internal/civil conflicts" category, which included the more specific types. Though I suppose not all guerilla wars are civil.
Johnbod
13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as is the term civil conflict can range quite far afield: were the racial conflicts in the US that defined the civil rights movement a conflict (watching the beatings it looks like a conflict to me); the Dirty War in Argentina, the various massacres and oppressions in many undemocatic places seem like conflicts but many never turn to full-fledged civil war, admittedly there will be a gray zone at the edges unless we well define what a civil war is and what it isn't: current times in Iraq? Iraq just at the end of the first Gulf War? The Shining Path-Peruvian government? The revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran? The various standoffs in the Taiwan Strait? The Nazi-Reds street battles during the waning days of Weimar Germany? The current war in Aghanistan? The "troubles" in Northern Ireland? The Red Army Faction against the West German government? etc...
Carlossuarez46
07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. My point is that "war" has a very specific meaning, whereas "conflict" does not. "Conflict", if it isn't used as a complete synonym for a war or battle (which usage would make "Civil wars and conflicts" a pointless name), means a disagreement. "Civil conflict" does not actually exist as a phrase according to the
Oxford English Dictionary, which means it is both confusing and non-existent. In other words, we do not need to rename the category. --
Necrothesp
09:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I've already explained the motivation for this proposal, but honestly, I can live with either name. Each name presents its own set of issues, but in both cases I think the problems they give rise to are relatively minor. I was primarily concerned that the naming of some of the subcats and articles might raise concerns in terms of not being properly aligned with the parent category. But if everybody can live with things as they are, that's fine with me.
Btw, I've now got the CFD notice properly posted -- sorry about the oversight. If this was a deletion proposal, I would withdraw it and start over; but given that deletion isn't being considered and the proposal is getting a goodly amount of attention, I don't think that's necessary.
Cgingold
12:59, 25 September 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:Cold War armoured personnel carriers
Category:World War II armoured cars
Category:World War II self-propelled anti-aircraft
- 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:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of World War II.--
Mike Selinker
16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:World War II self-propelled anti-aircraft to
Category: Self-propelled anti-aircraft of World War II
- Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent
category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at
WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era. —
Michael
Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z
Rename per nom. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of World War II. "Anti-aircraft" is an adjective, not a noun, and its parent cat is
Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons. As it stands, the name looks unfinished, as if the last word has been omitted by mistake. --
Necrothesp
09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, per Necrothesp. I wanted to remain consistent within this mass nomination, and with the speedy renaming of 46 other related categories at
WP:CFDS. But since this one couldn't be speedied anyway, we may as well fix the name. —
Michael
Z. 2007-09-25 15:09 Z
- Rename, per Necrothesp. Changing my !vote, supporting better grammar. -
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of World War II per
Necrothesp.
Vegaswikian
00:25, 27 September 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:World War II self-propelled artillery
Category:World War II tank destroyers
Category:World War II tankettes
Category:World War II self-propelled guns
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Pirate rock (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A made-up genre. Too narrow. 2 members.
Rocket000
22:26, 22 September 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.
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Anti-Christians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Subjective. Not defined. 2 members.
Rocket000
22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as vague per other anti-X categories as vague. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - largely ambiguous. Does "anti" imply epistemological (lack of a better word) objections ("those Christians are wrong") or ideological ones ("they **insert-your-own-act-of-atrocity-here** for fun")? —
xDanielx
T/
C
03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete subjective, underpopulated hate magnet.
Wryspy
06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for all of the reasons already noted. I would have no problem in principle with a category for individuals who have committed anti-Christian hate crimes and/or are notable for publishing anti-Christian hate literature. But this category is far too broad and lacking in definition.
In addition, I think it's worth taking note of the contrast between the two articles that were added to the category by its creator, Shaft424. One of the individuals (
Varg Vikernes) appears to be a certifiable hater of Christians or Christianity. But
Simcha Jacobovici is just a filmmaker, with nothing in his article indicating that he is "anti-Christian" -- and yet, Shaft424 saw fit to add him to the category two full months before he created it. Very peculiar. In any event, his inclusion smacks of POV-pushing, and gives some indication of Shaft424's intent in creating this category.
Cgingold
13:38, 25 September 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: World War I tanks
Category: Inter-war tanks
Category: World War II tanks
Category:African Civil Wars
Category:John Russell Pope
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Jackie Robinson (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale:
eponymous overcategorization. Gathering together articles of such higly tenuous connection to Robinson as the article for the number that happened to be his jersey number or a company for which he was a manager. The material here is extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized and doesn't warrant the category.
Otto4711
19:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep In the case of Jackie Robinson, this rule does not fit. Granted there is a bit too much with 42, but ehh. It warrants a category on the basis of increased usefuless of wikipedia and fits
WP:IAR given his importance culturally.--
Buridan
17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I was not expecting to support keeping this, but after looking through its contents I believe there's enough there to warrant a category. Although I agree that a couple of items ought to be removed, I just added another article that had been left out (
Jackie Robinson Foundation). We're not obligated to delete every single eponymous category, they should be evaluated on a case by case basis. For me, this one passes muster.
Cgingold
11:48, 28 September 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:G.I.S. software companies
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:G.I.S. software companies (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Ending up not being able to categorize software companies by their 'category', many companies focused on multiple sectors.
Cander0000
18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I suppose this could simply include companies whose activities include GIS software, but I see there is not a single member of the category for some reason. —
Michael
Z. 2007-09-26 05:24 Z
- 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.
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Mostly a duplicate of
Category:Primes, also titled incorrectly. The category
Category:Transformers characters could also do with a serious pruning, it has far too many subcategories.
JIP |
Talk
16:52, 22 September 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.
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Celebrity (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete, or at least Merge into
Category:Celebrities, the members should already be categorized according to why they are notable. --
Prove It
(talk)
13:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: looking at the two categories, it actually seems like their contents should be swapped. (And then
Category:Celebrities should probably be deleted as too subjective.) Categories with a singular name (e.g.
Category:Opera) should be used for articles about the topic, while categories with a plural name should be used for instances of the category (e.g.
Category:Operas). In this case, it is almost precisely backwards. It has been suggested that the Celebrities category should be used for people who are "famous for being famous", but that strikes me as mildly pejorative and I firmly believe that there have to be better ways of classifying such people.
Xtifr
tälk
21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Too broad - "fame" is already pretty much the standard for inclusion of people (
WP:BIO). --
Alksub
00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge or Delete. Could be a speedy merge for plural.
Vegaswikian
04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete vague, subjective, poorly named category.
Wryspy
06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, then rename the other one so it reflects the subject. —
Michael
Z. 2007-09-26 05:26 Z
- 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.
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:People from Keith, Scotland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Rename to
Category:People from Keith, Moray, to match
Keith, Moray. --
Prove It
(talk)
12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The cateogry had only one entry so I was dubious about it, but I've checked on a few articles and added them to the category, so it looks to have a bit of value.
AllyD
17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
Closer should note that the above !voter is the nom, and thus that is not a separate opinion.
Xtifr
tälk
21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Nom is ProveIt, not AllyD, so it was a separate opinion.
Bencherlite
Talk
23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- whoops, indeed so, sorry 'bout that.
Xtifr
tälk
23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- No worries.
Closer
14:12, 28 September 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.
- 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.
Kbdank71
14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Polish Britons to
Category:British people of Polish descent
- Nominator's rationale: There appears to be no reason why there are two categories and people seem to have been assigned to one or the other pretty randomly. --
Necrothesp
11:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge per nom.
Johnbod
17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep both: the Polish Britons category is predominantly (and should be) those born in Poland whereas the ...of Polish descent category is a weaker one for "2nd gen" people. Possibly they should be renamed to encourage clear allocation by editors - and some reallocation may be needed - but I certainly don't think it would be good to dilute the specific position of say a Namier or a Kołakowski into the latter category.
AllyD
17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That's not what the description on the P-B cat says at all, although I see most members do match that criterion. Is this distinction maintainable through all these cats? Does that matter?
Johnbod
18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Exactly. That's not what it says in the category description for Polish Britons, which appears to include anyone British with a vague connection to Poland and anyone Polish with a vague connection to Britain, and certainly includes British people with Polish heritage as well as people actually born in Poland. In addition, nobody has seen fit to link these two categories together at all, which they obviously should be if they're both going to stand. As it is at the moment there is absolutely no need for both of them without a major review of which category is for which class of people. --
Necrothesp
18:31, 22 September 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.