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. To coincide with the nomination below, these categories are just an extra category level that does not aid in navigation. These two Foo from the Southern United States are also the only two of their kind, as the other regions aren't covered at all. —
ξxplicit04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisting Comment - editors commenting originally should note the further population of the category, and edit their votes as necessary.
Dana boomer (
talk)
23:05, 9 October 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:Construction projects
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. Most of the items in here are questionable as to really belonging rather then being in other better categories. Inclusion in this and the previous
Category:Building projects was mostly based on ongoing construction activity. In how many cases does retaining a construction related category work correctly past the construction phase?
Project City Center was a construction project. However, the article morphed over time into the post construction name and purpose,
CityCenter. Since it no longer is an under development project, it probably does not belong in this category. Also I'll note that the introduction here is for Building and structures that are proposed or under construction. Which just happens to be the names for two of the subcategories. So at best if we keep this, it's parent should be
Category:Buildings and structures under construction and/or
Category:Proposed buildings and structures. I think that once we decide how to deal with this category, it may be acceptable to allow recreation of this category for notable building projects like
Big Dig,
Project City Center and maybe a few others. However the introduction for the category needs to establish objective inclusion criteria unlike the current version. Clearly over time we have not devoted articles to major construction projects like the
Pyramids. Even something more modern like the
Panama Canal does not have a construction article but
History of the Panama Canal comes close. I'm still considering how to address
Category:Development projects. I'll add in closing that virtually everything in
Category:Buildings and structures under construction could be called a construction project so do we really have just have this as an unnecessary level of categorization that does not improve clarity? We lack articles on
construction project and
development project so we lack a common form of guidance.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:48, 26 September 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 Navy in the Vietnam War
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: It's certainly possible that this category might actually be useful, if there are actually articles that could be filed here. As currently constituted, however, its only entry is
Vietnam War itself. Given that this category, as defined, is a subtopic of the Vietnam War, not vice versa, we should be using {{catmore}} to provide a text link to the war's main article but not categorizing that article in here. But if I were to correct that immediately, the category would be empty. I'll gladly withdraw this nomination if somebody can fill the category with articles that actually belong in it — but if the main article on the war itself is all we've got, then delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:09, 9 October 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.
Documentary 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.
Support all In fact, I think I may have been the one who raised this with the nominator years ago (but was too damn lazy to do anything about it). The documentaries top level category contains three main branches: documentary film, television and radio. The contents of the nominated categories are overwhelmingly for documentary films. In cases where a particular category has a significant number of documentary television programs/series or (much less likely) audio documentaries, we could repurpose the "documentaries about foo" category as a parent for film, television or radio subcats -- in other words, not rename or merge. But I think it would be preferable to have this CfD pass and let the bot do its thing, then make any necessary adjustments later, if need be.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
If I'd have known that the nomination took nearly 2 hours instead of my planned 10 minutes, I think I might have been too damn lazy too! ;-) Lugnuts (
talk)
08:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't quite understand your comment, but it is high time we created some documentary television program/series about foo categories, particularly for categories such as the nature documentaries, where a lot are TV. I'll start there.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:30, 17 October 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:Country singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America
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:Modern firearms of the Switzerland
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.
That article, which is very bad, essentially says that "modern weapons" are whatever weapons are new at any given time. That is not helpful for categorization purposes. Sandstein 16:07, 9 October 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:Shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses
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:Science fiction book series
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.
Comment a scifi book series need not be composed of novels. For instance, the War World military scifi book series is a series of anthologies.
76.66.200.95 (
talk)
04:27, 10 October 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:Trilogies by Robertson Davies
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:Death anniversaries
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:Official Apologies by United States of America
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, imprecise and overbroad. It pretends at being defined by a term of art "official apologies", yet there is no clear definition as to what constitutes such an apology. Is it enough that
the President gave an apology in a formal ceremony? A
joint statement by Cabinet members? Most damning, all but one of the included articles are not about apologies, but rather (I assume) things for which some official or agency of the U.S. government has apologized.
Native Americans in the United States was added by the category's creator, which indicates how vague and unworkable this category is. The
only article included that is about an apology explains that such a resolution by Congress has no legal effect, and it's not clear from the article that Congress even agreed that it was an apology ("Apology Resolution" is apparently a colloquial name for it) rather than an "acknowledgment" or some other such euphemism. Literally this category would also include friendly fire incidents, mistaken prosecutions and imprisonments...so long as someone, anyone, within the government afterward admitted that it was a mistake or regrettable incident. Or maybe I'm wrong in thinking this category is irredeemably unfocused and overbroad. postdlf (talk)
03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and change to "Official apologies" with small "a". Official presidential apologies, official state department apologies, and official congressional apologies should be included as these are by institutions and not individuals, and represent the government. If it gets too big they can be divided by Congress, President, and State Department, but its rare that the government formally apologizes. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to "Official apologies by the United States". The category can be more specifically defined at its category page, if desired, but, for now, I don't see why the dictionary definitions of "official" and "apology" are insufficient to define the category. --
Bsherr (
talk)
15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
But even setting the definitional issue aside as to what constitutes an "official apology" by the U.S., one of the biggest problems is that there is only one article about an apology in this category. Maybe there are more, but for now the category is instead largely "Things for which the United States has apologized", or in one instance,
Native Americans in the United States, "people to whom the United States has apologized for...something." postdlf (talk)
15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a valid topic as the United States government in one form or another has apologized for its actions on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, the inability to precisely define what constitutes an "official apology", as well as the various forms such apologies can take, necessitates more attention and description than a simple category can provide. Ideally we would start an article dividing into sections the various levels of apologies: by Congress, by the President, by Cabinet members, by states, and permutations thereof. I'll get to work right away. --
Hemlock Martinis (
talk)
20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
This might be useful if we had articles about the apologies themselves — but as pointed out by Postdlf, this category is being applied mainly to things the US has apologized for and/or people the US has apologized to. Given that categories are generally supposed to be applied on the basis of what the primary topic of the article is, and not on the basis of random related keywords that aren't defining characteristics of the thing itself, that means the only article that actually belongs here is
Apology Resolution. And if that's all we've got, then we don't need a category for it. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Bearcat. We don't have more than one article about the apologies themselves, and it doesn't make sense to me to have a category for things that have been the subject of some sort of apology from a government.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. As the nominator and GOF know, the Government of Canada has issued a number of these of late, as well. I'd have no objection to creating a global category for official apologies by governments (or other bodies) but it would have to be for articles on the apologies themselves, not things that are being apologized for.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
22:02, 11 October 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.
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. To coincide with the nomination below, these categories are just an extra category level that does not aid in navigation. These two Foo from the Southern United States are also the only two of their kind, as the other regions aren't covered at all. —
ξxplicit04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisting Comment - editors commenting originally should note the further population of the category, and edit their votes as necessary.
Dana boomer (
talk)
23:05, 9 October 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:Construction projects
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. Most of the items in here are questionable as to really belonging rather then being in other better categories. Inclusion in this and the previous
Category:Building projects was mostly based on ongoing construction activity. In how many cases does retaining a construction related category work correctly past the construction phase?
Project City Center was a construction project. However, the article morphed over time into the post construction name and purpose,
CityCenter. Since it no longer is an under development project, it probably does not belong in this category. Also I'll note that the introduction here is for Building and structures that are proposed or under construction. Which just happens to be the names for two of the subcategories. So at best if we keep this, it's parent should be
Category:Buildings and structures under construction and/or
Category:Proposed buildings and structures. I think that once we decide how to deal with this category, it may be acceptable to allow recreation of this category for notable building projects like
Big Dig,
Project City Center and maybe a few others. However the introduction for the category needs to establish objective inclusion criteria unlike the current version. Clearly over time we have not devoted articles to major construction projects like the
Pyramids. Even something more modern like the
Panama Canal does not have a construction article but
History of the Panama Canal comes close. I'm still considering how to address
Category:Development projects. I'll add in closing that virtually everything in
Category:Buildings and structures under construction could be called a construction project so do we really have just have this as an unnecessary level of categorization that does not improve clarity? We lack articles on
construction project and
development project so we lack a common form of guidance.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:48, 26 September 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 Navy in the Vietnam War
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: It's certainly possible that this category might actually be useful, if there are actually articles that could be filed here. As currently constituted, however, its only entry is
Vietnam War itself. Given that this category, as defined, is a subtopic of the Vietnam War, not vice versa, we should be using {{catmore}} to provide a text link to the war's main article but not categorizing that article in here. But if I were to correct that immediately, the category would be empty. I'll gladly withdraw this nomination if somebody can fill the category with articles that actually belong in it — but if the main article on the war itself is all we've got, then delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:09, 9 October 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.
Documentary 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.
Support all In fact, I think I may have been the one who raised this with the nominator years ago (but was too damn lazy to do anything about it). The documentaries top level category contains three main branches: documentary film, television and radio. The contents of the nominated categories are overwhelmingly for documentary films. In cases where a particular category has a significant number of documentary television programs/series or (much less likely) audio documentaries, we could repurpose the "documentaries about foo" category as a parent for film, television or radio subcats -- in other words, not rename or merge. But I think it would be preferable to have this CfD pass and let the bot do its thing, then make any necessary adjustments later, if need be.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
If I'd have known that the nomination took nearly 2 hours instead of my planned 10 minutes, I think I might have been too damn lazy too! ;-) Lugnuts (
talk)
08:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't quite understand your comment, but it is high time we created some documentary television program/series about foo categories, particularly for categories such as the nature documentaries, where a lot are TV. I'll start there.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:30, 17 October 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:Country singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America
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:Modern firearms of the Switzerland
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.
That article, which is very bad, essentially says that "modern weapons" are whatever weapons are new at any given time. That is not helpful for categorization purposes. Sandstein 16:07, 9 October 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:Shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses
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:Science fiction book series
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.
Comment a scifi book series need not be composed of novels. For instance, the War World military scifi book series is a series of anthologies.
76.66.200.95 (
talk)
04:27, 10 October 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:Trilogies by Robertson Davies
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:Death anniversaries
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:Official Apologies by United States of America
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, imprecise and overbroad. It pretends at being defined by a term of art "official apologies", yet there is no clear definition as to what constitutes such an apology. Is it enough that
the President gave an apology in a formal ceremony? A
joint statement by Cabinet members? Most damning, all but one of the included articles are not about apologies, but rather (I assume) things for which some official or agency of the U.S. government has apologized.
Native Americans in the United States was added by the category's creator, which indicates how vague and unworkable this category is. The
only article included that is about an apology explains that such a resolution by Congress has no legal effect, and it's not clear from the article that Congress even agreed that it was an apology ("Apology Resolution" is apparently a colloquial name for it) rather than an "acknowledgment" or some other such euphemism. Literally this category would also include friendly fire incidents, mistaken prosecutions and imprisonments...so long as someone, anyone, within the government afterward admitted that it was a mistake or regrettable incident. Or maybe I'm wrong in thinking this category is irredeemably unfocused and overbroad. postdlf (talk)
03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep and change to "Official apologies" with small "a". Official presidential apologies, official state department apologies, and official congressional apologies should be included as these are by institutions and not individuals, and represent the government. If it gets too big they can be divided by Congress, President, and State Department, but its rare that the government formally apologizes. --
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
talk)
04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to "Official apologies by the United States". The category can be more specifically defined at its category page, if desired, but, for now, I don't see why the dictionary definitions of "official" and "apology" are insufficient to define the category. --
Bsherr (
talk)
15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
But even setting the definitional issue aside as to what constitutes an "official apology" by the U.S., one of the biggest problems is that there is only one article about an apology in this category. Maybe there are more, but for now the category is instead largely "Things for which the United States has apologized", or in one instance,
Native Americans in the United States, "people to whom the United States has apologized for...something." postdlf (talk)
15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a valid topic as the United States government in one form or another has apologized for its actions on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, the inability to precisely define what constitutes an "official apology", as well as the various forms such apologies can take, necessitates more attention and description than a simple category can provide. Ideally we would start an article dividing into sections the various levels of apologies: by Congress, by the President, by Cabinet members, by states, and permutations thereof. I'll get to work right away. --
Hemlock Martinis (
talk)
20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
This might be useful if we had articles about the apologies themselves — but as pointed out by Postdlf, this category is being applied mainly to things the US has apologized for and/or people the US has apologized to. Given that categories are generally supposed to be applied on the basis of what the primary topic of the article is, and not on the basis of random related keywords that aren't defining characteristics of the thing itself, that means the only article that actually belongs here is
Apology Resolution. And if that's all we've got, then we don't need a category for it. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and Bearcat. We don't have more than one article about the apologies themselves, and it doesn't make sense to me to have a category for things that have been the subject of some sort of apology from a government.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. As the nominator and GOF know, the Government of Canada has issued a number of these of late, as well. I'd have no objection to creating a global category for official apologies by governments (or other bodies) but it would have to be for articles on the apologies themselves, not things that are being apologized for.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
22:02, 11 October 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.