Category:Columbia Graduate School of Journalism alumni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of Royal Navy ships, by type
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soviet rockets
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category, a subcategory of
Category:Space launch vehicles, was proposed for speedy renaming as part of a large batch of subcats of that category, in order to make them "X of Y" name format compliant. This one, however, raised eyebrows (and objections) because it included not just space launch vehicles, but also rocket engines, sounding rockets, and other non-SLV stuff. I've since cleaned it out, though, so that those articles are now in their proper categories, so the category now includes only SLVs, and a subcategory of same, should be renamed to the "X of Y" format as proposed. :) -
The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Transport songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No parent article of
transport song. Seems very arbitrary criterion for a theme and very nebulous — for instance, "Love Can Build a Bridge" is only about a metaphorical bridge. Creator has history of making dubious categories. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention)19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per Mike Selinker, whom I agree with. And these would make useful additions to the
Category:Songs by theme parent category, which btw also needs expansion to more themes.. in addition to the "Songs about cars" mentioned above there's a few others missing, such as "Songs about the sea/ocean/sailing etc." for one example. However there are other subcats in
Category:Songs by theme that are inconsistent with this "Songs about ..." naming convention and we need to decide whether to rename those as all or to stick with the "...-related songs" naming scheme. --
Ϫ17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in not smoking
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - "Not" category. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that it is meant to categorize users who are against something. "For Wikipedians against smoking." - Does not help collaboration to group users in categories by things they don't like.
Potentially speedyable if someone had a broad interpretation of G4 as substantially similar to "Wikipedian non-smokers".
VegaDark (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tandy games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Update This begins to make more sense. The platform in question is
Tandy 1000, a not-100%-compatible variant of IBM-PC/AT. Games which support this make, were labeled accordingly, Confer
scan of floppy. So this category should at least be renamed
Category:Tandy 1000 games. However, I am not convinced that this level of granularity is required when categorizing video games by platform. Current practice is to tag these games as
Category:DOS games. -- A similar hardware variant is
IBM PCjr --
Make (
talk)
09:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Category:TRS-80 Color Computer games as it appears the games listed were meant for this one. I played the Chuck Yeagar flight sim for that PC so I can attest to at least that game being tagged correctly, if improperly. I am saying redirect rather than delete because Tandy is the popular name.
陣内Jinnai03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Headlands of County XXX.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Most of them only contain 1 article. Only one category contains more than 3 articles. Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 21. This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. Each article names the relevant county. A discussion has been on the
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "8 Headlands by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Headland category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Headlands per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dormitory buildings
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Estévez family
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category includes the brother, wife, and children of
Martin Sheen, born Ramón Estévez in Ohio. Some members of the family use "Sheen", while others use "Estevez". In the latter group, none of them use an accent in the name. While "Estevez" may be spelled with an accent in Spanish, in English-language sources, including credits, the accent is never used for the members of this family in this category. Will Bebacktalk00:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)reply
What is the "parent article"? Martin Sheen no longer calls himself "Estévez", nor does anyone else in the family. No living member uses the accent. Will Bebacktalk10:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lahontan regions
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another one of those USGS subunits better addressed as an article if notability can be established. In the end, this should only contain three subcategories for the three units it covers. Not defining for the included articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Aircraft structural failures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Up Merge. Remove one extra level of navigation. Do we have any notable aircraft structural failures that are notable and not in flight?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Lincoln, England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support -- the categories for Birmingham are for "Birmingham, England", to prevent mis-population from Birmingham, AL. However, I am not clear why the article is at
Lincoln, England, rather than
Lincoln which is a disambiguation page and ought to be at
Lincoln (disambiguation). Everything else, including the US president takes its name directly or indirectly from the English city, so that the city of Lincoln, here in England ought to be the primary subject, with an "otheruses" hatnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are planning to retire
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is not substantially different from any of the other (now-deleted) categories of Wikipedians
by activity status, such as those for retired editors or editors taking a wikibreak. It is not useful to group users by this characteristic because there is really no reason anyone would need to browse through such a category looking for random users who are planning to retire. The category is userbox-populated (as of 30 October 2010), so most of the users in the category probably do not even know that they are categorized. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems a very random collection. I could be interested in supporting if this contained essays of Wikipedians planning to retire for specific given reasons. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States Army Air Force in films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge to both parents. I don't see a need to keep this small subset of articles separate from the category that contains most of these WWII films. This category created by a banned user is not likely to grow more in the foreseeable future.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Hey, i'm not sure if this is the right place to complane, but I bought target for today for my greatgrandpa's veteran's day since he was a wwii usaaf tailgunner, and when he called to find out how to ge mor of the air core dvds, irecommended looking for a list at wikipeedia-- now it makes me look stupid sinc the list is being deleted even thogh it should have hundreds of usaaf films (gramps says prez reagun was in one) what's up with that/ o well another strikout at wikipeeda ian k in arizona —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.134.240.146 (
talk)
23:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:School
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2010 architecture
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is really a trial balloon for a mass rename. If you look at the introduction it is for Works of architecture completed in the year 2010. The name is ambiguous in that it should include completed in the name. The actual work is finished when the overall design is completed which can be many years before the physical work is finished. Yes, some changes may happen along the way, but these tend to be more engineering related since they figure out how to implement the work. You also run into weird cases over the definition of a work. Take the case of the
Harmon Hotel the design was completed in 2006. The visible exterior was completed in 2009 to a redesign done in 2009. The building may not be completed for several more years. To say that it represents 2010 in architecture is rather misleading. With the proposed rename, the completion of these would be included in a well established tree. If someone wants to begin the series for the years when the buildings were designed, then a better named tree can be created. Another example is the
Washington Monument which was finished many years after construction began. There are also cases where cathedrals have been built over hundreds of years like
Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York which is still not finished but was designed in 1888 and is categorized in
Category:1888 architecture. I'll contend that the cathedral should be in a redefined or better defined
Category:1888 architecture and
Category:1909 architecture and not in any completed category. There may be some items that are not buildings or structures, but these can be cleaned up over time. Another issue with the current system is that there is no way to categorize works of architecture that were designed, are notable and were not built.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Note. In doing more digging, the architecture series uses a template to define the introduction, navigation and population of the parent categories. So if consensus is to support this proposal in concept, it would probably be better to modify the template to change the introductions to removed completed and say year designed and then to create new categories for the completed buildings and structures. This will mean a lot of manual work, but it is probably the best way to proceed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
If this closes as approval of the change, leave a note on my talk page and I'll start making the changes. I'm not expecting the closer to start the process of making the moves.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Columbia Graduate School of Journalism alumni
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of Royal Navy ships, by type
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Soviet rockets
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category, a subcategory of
Category:Space launch vehicles, was proposed for speedy renaming as part of a large batch of subcats of that category, in order to make them "X of Y" name format compliant. This one, however, raised eyebrows (and objections) because it included not just space launch vehicles, but also rocket engines, sounding rockets, and other non-SLV stuff. I've since cleaned it out, though, so that those articles are now in their proper categories, so the category now includes only SLVs, and a subcategory of same, should be renamed to the "X of Y" format as proposed. :) -
The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed20:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Transport songs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
No parent article of
transport song. Seems very arbitrary criterion for a theme and very nebulous — for instance, "Love Can Build a Bridge" is only about a metaphorical bridge. Creator has history of making dubious categories. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention)19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per Mike Selinker, whom I agree with. And these would make useful additions to the
Category:Songs by theme parent category, which btw also needs expansion to more themes.. in addition to the "Songs about cars" mentioned above there's a few others missing, such as "Songs about the sea/ocean/sailing etc." for one example. However there are other subcats in
Category:Songs by theme that are inconsistent with this "Songs about ..." naming convention and we need to decide whether to rename those as all or to stick with the "...-related songs" naming scheme. --
Ϫ17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in not smoking
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - "Not" category. Violates
WP:USERCAT in that it is meant to categorize users who are against something. "For Wikipedians against smoking." - Does not help collaboration to group users in categories by things they don't like.
Potentially speedyable if someone had a broad interpretation of G4 as substantially similar to "Wikipedian non-smokers".
VegaDark (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tandy games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Update This begins to make more sense. The platform in question is
Tandy 1000, a not-100%-compatible variant of IBM-PC/AT. Games which support this make, were labeled accordingly, Confer
scan of floppy. So this category should at least be renamed
Category:Tandy 1000 games. However, I am not convinced that this level of granularity is required when categorizing video games by platform. Current practice is to tag these games as
Category:DOS games. -- A similar hardware variant is
IBM PCjr --
Make (
talk)
09:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Category:TRS-80 Color Computer games as it appears the games listed were meant for this one. I played the Chuck Yeagar flight sim for that PC so I can attest to at least that game being tagged correctly, if improperly. I am saying redirect rather than delete because Tandy is the popular name.
陣内Jinnai03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Headlands of County XXX.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Most of them only contain 1 article. Only one category contains more than 3 articles. Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 21. This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. Each article names the relevant county. A discussion has been on the
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "8 Headlands by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Headland category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Headlands per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX".
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dormitory buildings
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Estévez family
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category includes the brother, wife, and children of
Martin Sheen, born Ramón Estévez in Ohio. Some members of the family use "Sheen", while others use "Estevez". In the latter group, none of them use an accent in the name. While "Estevez" may be spelled with an accent in Spanish, in English-language sources, including credits, the accent is never used for the members of this family in this category. Will Bebacktalk00:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)reply
What is the "parent article"? Martin Sheen no longer calls himself "Estévez", nor does anyone else in the family. No living member uses the accent. Will Bebacktalk10:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lahontan regions
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Another one of those USGS subunits better addressed as an article if notability can be established. In the end, this should only contain three subcategories for the three units it covers. Not defining for the included articles.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Aircraft structural failures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Up Merge. Remove one extra level of navigation. Do we have any notable aircraft structural failures that are notable and not in flight?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Lincoln, England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support -- the categories for Birmingham are for "Birmingham, England", to prevent mis-population from Birmingham, AL. However, I am not clear why the article is at
Lincoln, England, rather than
Lincoln which is a disambiguation page and ought to be at
Lincoln (disambiguation). Everything else, including the US president takes its name directly or indirectly from the English city, so that the city of Lincoln, here in England ought to be the primary subject, with an "otheruses" hatnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are planning to retire
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is not substantially different from any of the other (now-deleted) categories of Wikipedians
by activity status, such as those for retired editors or editors taking a wikibreak. It is not useful to group users by this characteristic because there is really no reason anyone would need to browse through such a category looking for random users who are planning to retire. The category is userbox-populated (as of 30 October 2010), so most of the users in the category probably do not even know that they are categorized. -- Black Falcon(
talk)03:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Seems a very random collection. I could be interested in supporting if this contained essays of Wikipedians planning to retire for specific given reasons. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States Army Air Force in films
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge to both parents. I don't see a need to keep this small subset of articles separate from the category that contains most of these WWII films. This category created by a banned user is not likely to grow more in the foreseeable future.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Hey, i'm not sure if this is the right place to complane, but I bought target for today for my greatgrandpa's veteran's day since he was a wwii usaaf tailgunner, and when he called to find out how to ge mor of the air core dvds, irecommended looking for a list at wikipeedia-- now it makes me look stupid sinc the list is being deleted even thogh it should have hundreds of usaaf films (gramps says prez reagun was in one) what's up with that/ o well another strikout at wikipeeda ian k in arizona —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
64.134.240.146 (
talk)
23:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:School
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2010 architecture
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is really a trial balloon for a mass rename. If you look at the introduction it is for Works of architecture completed in the year 2010. The name is ambiguous in that it should include completed in the name. The actual work is finished when the overall design is completed which can be many years before the physical work is finished. Yes, some changes may happen along the way, but these tend to be more engineering related since they figure out how to implement the work. You also run into weird cases over the definition of a work. Take the case of the
Harmon Hotel the design was completed in 2006. The visible exterior was completed in 2009 to a redesign done in 2009. The building may not be completed for several more years. To say that it represents 2010 in architecture is rather misleading. With the proposed rename, the completion of these would be included in a well established tree. If someone wants to begin the series for the years when the buildings were designed, then a better named tree can be created. Another example is the
Washington Monument which was finished many years after construction began. There are also cases where cathedrals have been built over hundreds of years like
Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York which is still not finished but was designed in 1888 and is categorized in
Category:1888 architecture. I'll contend that the cathedral should be in a redefined or better defined
Category:1888 architecture and
Category:1909 architecture and not in any completed category. There may be some items that are not buildings or structures, but these can be cleaned up over time. Another issue with the current system is that there is no way to categorize works of architecture that were designed, are notable and were not built.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Note. In doing more digging, the architecture series uses a template to define the introduction, navigation and population of the parent categories. So if consensus is to support this proposal in concept, it would probably be better to modify the template to change the introductions to removed completed and say year designed and then to create new categories for the completed buildings and structures. This will mean a lot of manual work, but it is probably the best way to proceed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)reply
If this closes as approval of the change, leave a note on my talk page and I'll start making the changes. I'm not expecting the closer to start the process of making the moves.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.