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: While being sunk by aircraft (there's a cat for that) seems defining, merely being damaged by aerial attack doesn't seem like something that ships should be categorised by. The subcategory (kamikaze damage) seems worthy of note, but simply being strafed or bombed, not so much...
The BushrangerOne ping only23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reason that we categorize people by cause of death but we do not categorize people by every disease they ever suffered. A ship could have been damaged by arcraft, by weapons from other ships, by land based weapons, by whales hitting it, by termites and who knows what else. This is not a defining characteristic.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:51, 31 December 2011 (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.
Categories with redlink or redirect music producers
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:NGC objects templates
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:Gettysburg Battlefield
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 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 result of the discussion was:don't merge. This isn't a "Keep" since there are no other Places of the" categories, so it seems likely to change again. But not into
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) The preceding discussion content was hidden via delete by
User:Mike Selinker on 18:50, 7 January 2012 and is now restored with strikethrough font for visibility.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- WE had a long discussion about this quite recently. Gettysburg has a well-developed tree. From the speedy discussion it appears that some one is populating a category redirect with articles, which is not supposed to happen. I thought that there was a bot patrolling to prevent that. Adminstrative action is required against the user who is populating this category redirect. This requires an ewxperienced editor who is an expert on the subject to tidy up the cat-tree and then to guard it agaisnt the actions of overenthuiastic well-meaning but misguided editors.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
On second thoughts, perhpas there is a better way of dealing with this: delete and salt -- That will prevent re-creation and also prevent articles being added to a cat-redirect, contrary to policy.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I created a User ID (doubtful I'll have time to edit articles) since it looks like I didn't sign the nomination right--the syntax like that deceptive colon at the front category brackets takes some time to figure. It's not clear what the rationale is in the previous 2 "Oppose" posts for why readers should have to look somewhere other than
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield for articles and categories about the events, images, etc. regarding the
Gettysburg Battlefield. If you could, please write your specific reasons why they should have to look elsewhere (e.g., in 2 other categories, one of which isn't identified by the new redirect code.) Thanks guys. Oh, and where is the discussion mentioned in the one "Oppose"? I previously checked the
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield discussion tab and there was only one comment from the guy who claimed the redirect was the result of the Cfd, but the Cfd didn't create a redirect--the redirect was created almost a year later. Could you please provide a link to the discuss you've cited? Thanks. BTW, what is "delete and salt"--will that delete Category:Places of ... and place the articles in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield?
Lake Woodhouse in Denver (
talk)
03:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)reply
2. To claim
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield "was effectively deleted" after the 2010 merger is also falsely misleading -- the category was literally deleted and the banner in its place specically stated that it had been "deleted".
3. "I created the redirect" by creating
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield "so I wouldn't have to move all the articles from a
non-existant [sic] category" is also falsely misleading, as the category existed once he created it!
4. Claiming "it would automatically be moved to the target as decided in that earlier discussion" is also falsely misleading... the Russbot moves articles to the target of the redirect, regardless of whether that matches the target of the merge that occurred a year earlier.
6. Claiming that "
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield can exist as a parent category" is actually stating that it can be populated (parent categories are, by definition, populated), so the Starcheerswhatever claim "Total misreprensentation" [sic] below is just another falsehood. Perhaps that was to try to cover up the problems with all of his falsehoods up here, but of course that didn't work as they are now being addressed.
7. Claiming
Category:Gettysburg Campaign "seems to be the top parent" (equivicated with the word "seems") is another misleading claim -- as clearly
Category:Gettysburg Campaign isn't a top parent whatsoever and the Gettysburg Battlefield is an area and not an event nor military operation. Battlefield categories are literally part of the higher-level
Category:Battlefields tree, which is self-evident and ignored by Starcheerswhatever in his "top parent" claim. The branch for military operations is what nominally goes through the campaign categories and the battlefield isn't a military operation. Any interwebbing is not indicative of a "top parent". Again, it looks like, as with many users, Starcheerswhatever has trouble distinguishing places from events, theaters from battlefields, battlefields from campaigns, etc. But of course this nomination by Lake W will help resolve that trouble in that users looking for Gettysburg Battlefield articles can just look into--guess what?-- the
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield.
Why Starcheerswhatever is falsely misleading readers with all this disinformation that is NOT about
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield is clearly evident, ... to try to cover up the following: THE OPPOSITION BY Starcheerswhatever DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY RATIONALE FOR KEEPING
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, which is what Lake W. pointed out about the 1st two "oppose" claims (and those posters haven't replied to the rebuttal).
69.46.35.69 (
talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (sorry Lake if you were going to point out the same about Starcheerswhatever's oppose--I just couldn't wait after his troll below; and I'll start populating
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield with the battlefield subcategories like Starcheerswhatever said.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC))reply
Merge: This is a no-brainer, as Category:X of Y shouldn't exist if Category Y isn't populated, and as clearly stated by the nominater (and agreed by 2 opposers):
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield needs to be populated. That is, a reader should be able to directly access a populated category named "Gettysburg Battlefield" and not have to know that--unlike all other specific-place categories for battlefields, cities, landforms, etc.--this particular category name has the inappropriate "Places of..." extra words. Its kind of hard to believe anyone is opposing this, and that the
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is a redirect and even moreso, was deleted in 2010 (i.e., opposing this nomination is advocating that all categories for specific places be renamed "Places of...". and have an unpopulated redirect parent!) I haven't edited for a while and use the categories to get to articles for reference, but this nomination's opposition is a good reason to restart!
Long Island Lyn (
talk)
17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
"Hi, the discussion was regarding merging the contents of
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield, which was clearly opposed. The discussion was not ended early as CfDs typically remain open for one week, especially when there is clear consensus. This was all the discussion was about - so it was appropriately closed as 'do not merge' - and had nothing to do with what to do with
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. I recommend taking this to the task force for this topic, which is located at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and ask advice for how to handle the entire category scheme under
Category:Gettysburg Campaign. Unfortunately, there is one user,
User:Target for Today, who has been adding in a lot of Gettysburg categories when he doesn't quite understand how categories work." --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) [The preceding response was posted to
User talk:Long Island Lyn instead of here with the content to which it was responding. Looks like Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars wanted to put it someplace that users reading here wouldn't see it? Also, don't expect Lyn to respond anytime soon his work duties (trip back East this week) and family don't leave him much time.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)reply [Rebuttal, e.g. to "This was all the discussion was about", "had nothing to do with", etc., goes here...69.46.35.69 (
talk)
20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)reply
You've falsely quoted the preceding poster when you wrote "all categories be renamed..." -- as his wording clearly identifies "for specific places" which you omitted. It's not clear why you made the false quotation to irrationally claim "all categories" (particularly since cut/paste would have included the interior words) but regardless, please ensure you don't make false quotes in the future.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
"solid opposition"? Hardly so, as the nominator clearly rebutted and identified the 1st 2 opposers who didn't identify their rationale, and the 3rd opposer also (again, like at the previous Places of... nomination) agreed
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should be populated and here buried that in overly wordy (and sometimes) false rationalizations unrelated to the nomination. Since the nominator hasn't posted since his rebuttal, he should have been given more time to rebut the invalid 3rd opposition (although his preceding reasons are sufficient). Remember
Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Total misrepresentation? Not hardly, as you can see in the above rebuttal to your unsubstantiated "oppose" that your attempt to now claim "total misrepresentation" is just another falsehood. But of course keep up the misrepresentations to discredit yourself -- they help show Lake W.'s nomination is valid.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree: This is simply a C2D nomination, which is a speedy rule for which there are numerous reasons for following in this case and which have been clearly stated by the nominator and those agreeing (and 2 that oppose the nomination agree Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should exist). Why won't the opposers explain their rationale for forcing readers who go to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield to see battlefield articles & subcategories to then be advised to go to the
Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign, then to go to the subcategory
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield --a complete waste of time. I created the nominated category as a newbie for battlefield structures before
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield was deleted, but I should used a more specific title (
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures has since been created.) Why should there ever be a vaguely-named category with Places of... in the title for a specific place when a category isn't populated for that specific place?
Target for Today (
talk)
21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated: There shouldn't be a "Places of..." category for the
Gettysburg Battlefield, which is a specific politically-defined place approx the size of a township (the national park is officially a separate populated place of the county). "Places of..." categories are for generic sets such as
Category:Places of worship; and not specific places like particular states, counties, parks (e.g., the battlefield), townships, or landforms. (I work with Long Island Lyn and he sometimes proofreads my edits before I post. Thanks Lynwood!)
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Are you referring to my edits and the previous poster's edits?--because if so, your claim is blatantly false. I have about 500 edits posted in the last 6 months (doubtfully more than 100 per month) and I don't know how many Target has. Even if he has less than 12 even before he got a username, the combined number is in the hundres. And why is that point about "Places of..." interesting? Not only did Selinker identify it when he closed the discussion with the conflict of interest--one can just search "Category:Places of" and see that the convention is for generic sets like
Category:Places of worship and not specific regions like
Category:Places of North America,
Category:Places of Pennsylvania, or
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. (The search took me only about a minute). Was it your intent to make up the "combined 12 posts" claim? Nice troll, tho'--it got me to study (and rebut) all the BS from opposers (particularly you).
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Closing comment. I closed this as: don't merge. This isn't a "Keep" since there are no other "Places of the" categories, so it seems likely to change again. But not into
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. However, I see no reason to stand on ceremony given that other opinions have come forth. Let's keep this open for a couple more days and see what happens.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, so you're the guy who nominated
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to be merged--even previously agreeing for it to be merged to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield--and now weeks later end a discussion for it to be merged? Fishy (thanks Lake for pointing that out.). And why did you withhold your rationale for your ridiculous claim "But not into Category:Gettysburg Battlefield"--e.g., Starcheerswhatever et al clearly identify the reasons that category needs populated. Even more importantly, the one guy above distinctly pointed out the C2D policy applies, and all the "Gettysburg Battlefield" other wiki-entities are well-defined: as an article, as a commons category, plus all the subcategories like
Category:Events on the Gettysburg Battlefield (which even Starcheerswhatever agrees goes in
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield). Maybe you'll do the courtesy of justifying your unbelievable flip-flop to oppose--hopefully not with falsehoods like Starcheerswhatever has done. And why didn't you identify your post with the oppose claim as an "oppose", BTW? Very fishy.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Wow, you really like throwing around allegations. But you are right that I shouldn't have closed this nomination. I had forgotten about that November nomination, where a similarly dramatic IP address-only editor convinced me about merging to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. Had I remembered it, I would not have closed this one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:38, 10 January 2012 (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:New templates
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.
Probably. It certainly makes more sense as an automated process than as a manual category that's only ever been used by the guy who created the category.
Theoldsparkle (
talk)
16:29, 3 January 2012 (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:Films of Weimar Germany
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.
Oppose -- The Weimar Republic existed for a period of German history. However, a reader from (say) South America will not necessarily know what it is. I therefore consider that the retention of Germany in the title is desirable. Categories usually follow article, but not necessarily.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Echo what Bushranger stated below. The category should have the correct name to match the time period, and the cat can have a simple link/intro at the top explaining what The Weimar Republic is. Lugnuts (
talk)
18:35, 1 January 2012 (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:Films of the Third Reich
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:Films about communists
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 - We shouldn't be categorising "films about communists" - it's nebulously defined. It's entirely possible to have a film about somebody who was a communist, with the film itself having nothing significant about communism in it at all. Films about communism, however is a very defining feature of said films, and the films about communists, in which their communist affiliation is the point of the film, are, indeed, films about communism. -
The BushrangerOne ping only08:24, 31 December 2011 (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:Children's books about death
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 result of the discussion was:delete. There doesn't seem to be a strong desire to keep this category on its merits. While interesting, Jenks24's attribution argument gives a category power that no category should have.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: See also the similarly deleted "Children's films about death" category by the same user. A book in which someone dies or in which death is mentioned is not a "book about death." It could be a useful list - unfortunately
Children's books about death, by the same user, seems to contain a lot of original research and to be more about "death in children's literature," ie. where the book is not generally "about" death in any meaningful way. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
06:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: The {{
copied}} template at
Talk:Children's books about death reads "Text from :Category:Children's books about death was copied into Children's books about death with this edit. Category:Children's books about death now serves to provide attribution for that content in Children's books about death and must not be deleted so long as Children's books about death exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history; for its talk page, see Category talk:Children's books about death." Unfortunately, I don't think this category should be deleted because attribution for that article would be lost.
Jenks24 (
talk)
06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
*facepalm* There should be a way to get around that, though - move the category page to a subpage of the article talk page for attribution purposes, and delete the subsequent redirect. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
RenameDeath in children's literature would seem to me to be more appropriate. The number of children's books which are "about" death is relatively small. Books in which a character has to come to terms with the death of a key individual as part of his or her personal journey in the story are more common, although the death may not be the main plot driver. Death is a theme that children's literature professionals (teachers, librarians) are asked about from time to time. There may be some issues around the main article in its current state but that doesn't invalidate the category, I believe. --
CharlieDelta (
talk)
16:33, 30 December 2011 (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:Software systems
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.
Sure. The articles can go in
Category:Software. (Some of the articles need further refinement.) I checked each of the subcategories, and they're already linked from the parents where they should be (
Category:Computer systems,
Category:Software, or other topics), so this category can just be removed. I changed my request to upmerge articles only, then delete. –
Pnm (
talk)
21:00, 30 December 2011 (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:Programming bugs
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:Mac OS X music creation software
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:Computer telephony software
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.
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: While being sunk by aircraft (there's a cat for that) seems defining, merely being damaged by aerial attack doesn't seem like something that ships should be categorised by. The subcategory (kamikaze damage) seems worthy of note, but simply being strafed or bombed, not so much...
The BushrangerOne ping only23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reason that we categorize people by cause of death but we do not categorize people by every disease they ever suffered. A ship could have been damaged by arcraft, by weapons from other ships, by land based weapons, by whales hitting it, by termites and who knows what else. This is not a defining characteristic.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:51, 31 December 2011 (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.
Categories with redlink or redirect music producers
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:NGC objects templates
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:Gettysburg Battlefield
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 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 result of the discussion was:don't merge. This isn't a "Keep" since there are no other Places of the" categories, so it seems likely to change again. But not into
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) The preceding discussion content was hidden via delete by
User:Mike Selinker on 18:50, 7 January 2012 and is now restored with strikethrough font for visibility.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- WE had a long discussion about this quite recently. Gettysburg has a well-developed tree. From the speedy discussion it appears that some one is populating a category redirect with articles, which is not supposed to happen. I thought that there was a bot patrolling to prevent that. Adminstrative action is required against the user who is populating this category redirect. This requires an ewxperienced editor who is an expert on the subject to tidy up the cat-tree and then to guard it agaisnt the actions of overenthuiastic well-meaning but misguided editors.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
On second thoughts, perhpas there is a better way of dealing with this: delete and salt -- That will prevent re-creation and also prevent articles being added to a cat-redirect, contrary to policy.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I created a User ID (doubtful I'll have time to edit articles) since it looks like I didn't sign the nomination right--the syntax like that deceptive colon at the front category brackets takes some time to figure. It's not clear what the rationale is in the previous 2 "Oppose" posts for why readers should have to look somewhere other than
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield for articles and categories about the events, images, etc. regarding the
Gettysburg Battlefield. If you could, please write your specific reasons why they should have to look elsewhere (e.g., in 2 other categories, one of which isn't identified by the new redirect code.) Thanks guys. Oh, and where is the discussion mentioned in the one "Oppose"? I previously checked the
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield discussion tab and there was only one comment from the guy who claimed the redirect was the result of the Cfd, but the Cfd didn't create a redirect--the redirect was created almost a year later. Could you please provide a link to the discuss you've cited? Thanks. BTW, what is "delete and salt"--will that delete Category:Places of ... and place the articles in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield?
Lake Woodhouse in Denver (
talk)
03:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)reply
2. To claim
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield "was effectively deleted" after the 2010 merger is also falsely misleading -- the category was literally deleted and the banner in its place specically stated that it had been "deleted".
3. "I created the redirect" by creating
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield "so I wouldn't have to move all the articles from a
non-existant [sic] category" is also falsely misleading, as the category existed once he created it!
4. Claiming "it would automatically be moved to the target as decided in that earlier discussion" is also falsely misleading... the Russbot moves articles to the target of the redirect, regardless of whether that matches the target of the merge that occurred a year earlier.
6. Claiming that "
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield can exist as a parent category" is actually stating that it can be populated (parent categories are, by definition, populated), so the Starcheerswhatever claim "Total misreprensentation" [sic] below is just another falsehood. Perhaps that was to try to cover up the problems with all of his falsehoods up here, but of course that didn't work as they are now being addressed.
7. Claiming
Category:Gettysburg Campaign "seems to be the top parent" (equivicated with the word "seems") is another misleading claim -- as clearly
Category:Gettysburg Campaign isn't a top parent whatsoever and the Gettysburg Battlefield is an area and not an event nor military operation. Battlefield categories are literally part of the higher-level
Category:Battlefields tree, which is self-evident and ignored by Starcheerswhatever in his "top parent" claim. The branch for military operations is what nominally goes through the campaign categories and the battlefield isn't a military operation. Any interwebbing is not indicative of a "top parent". Again, it looks like, as with many users, Starcheerswhatever has trouble distinguishing places from events, theaters from battlefields, battlefields from campaigns, etc. But of course this nomination by Lake W will help resolve that trouble in that users looking for Gettysburg Battlefield articles can just look into--guess what?-- the
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield.
Why Starcheerswhatever is falsely misleading readers with all this disinformation that is NOT about
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield is clearly evident, ... to try to cover up the following: THE OPPOSITION BY Starcheerswhatever DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ANY RATIONALE FOR KEEPING
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, which is what Lake W. pointed out about the 1st two "oppose" claims (and those posters haven't replied to the rebuttal).
69.46.35.69 (
talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (sorry Lake if you were going to point out the same about Starcheerswhatever's oppose--I just couldn't wait after his troll below; and I'll start populating
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield with the battlefield subcategories like Starcheerswhatever said.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC))reply
Merge: This is a no-brainer, as Category:X of Y shouldn't exist if Category Y isn't populated, and as clearly stated by the nominater (and agreed by 2 opposers):
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield needs to be populated. That is, a reader should be able to directly access a populated category named "Gettysburg Battlefield" and not have to know that--unlike all other specific-place categories for battlefields, cities, landforms, etc.--this particular category name has the inappropriate "Places of..." extra words. Its kind of hard to believe anyone is opposing this, and that the
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is a redirect and even moreso, was deleted in 2010 (i.e., opposing this nomination is advocating that all categories for specific places be renamed "Places of...". and have an unpopulated redirect parent!) I haven't edited for a while and use the categories to get to articles for reference, but this nomination's opposition is a good reason to restart!
Long Island Lyn (
talk)
17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
"Hi, the discussion was regarding merging the contents of
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield, which was clearly opposed. The discussion was not ended early as CfDs typically remain open for one week, especially when there is clear consensus. This was all the discussion was about - so it was appropriately closed as 'do not merge' - and had nothing to do with what to do with
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. I recommend taking this to the task force for this topic, which is located at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, and ask advice for how to handle the entire category scheme under
Category:Gettysburg Campaign. Unfortunately, there is one user,
User:Target for Today, who has been adding in a lot of Gettysburg categories when he doesn't quite understand how categories work." --
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (
talk) 18:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC) [The preceding response was posted to
User talk:Long Island Lyn instead of here with the content to which it was responding. Looks like Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars wanted to put it someplace that users reading here wouldn't see it? Also, don't expect Lyn to respond anytime soon his work duties (trip back East this week) and family don't leave him much time.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)reply [Rebuttal, e.g. to "This was all the discussion was about", "had nothing to do with", etc., goes here...69.46.35.69 (
talk)
20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)reply
You've falsely quoted the preceding poster when you wrote "all categories be renamed..." -- as his wording clearly identifies "for specific places" which you omitted. It's not clear why you made the false quotation to irrationally claim "all categories" (particularly since cut/paste would have included the interior words) but regardless, please ensure you don't make false quotes in the future.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
"solid opposition"? Hardly so, as the nominator clearly rebutted and identified the 1st 2 opposers who didn't identify their rationale, and the 3rd opposer also (again, like at the previous Places of... nomination) agreed
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should be populated and here buried that in overly wordy (and sometimes) false rationalizations unrelated to the nomination. Since the nominator hasn't posted since his rebuttal, he should have been given more time to rebut the invalid 3rd opposition (although his preceding reasons are sufficient). Remember
Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Total misrepresentation? Not hardly, as you can see in the above rebuttal to your unsubstantiated "oppose" that your attempt to now claim "total misrepresentation" is just another falsehood. But of course keep up the misrepresentations to discredit yourself -- they help show Lake W.'s nomination is valid.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree: This is simply a C2D nomination, which is a speedy rule for which there are numerous reasons for following in this case and which have been clearly stated by the nominator and those agreeing (and 2 that oppose the nomination agree Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should exist). Why won't the opposers explain their rationale for forcing readers who go to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield to see battlefield articles & subcategories to then be advised to go to the
Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign, then to go to the subcategory
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield --a complete waste of time. I created the nominated category as a newbie for battlefield structures before
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield was deleted, but I should used a more specific title (
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures has since been created.) Why should there ever be a vaguely-named category with Places of... in the title for a specific place when a category isn't populated for that specific place?
Target for Today (
talk)
21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge as nominated: There shouldn't be a "Places of..." category for the
Gettysburg Battlefield, which is a specific politically-defined place approx the size of a township (the national park is officially a separate populated place of the county). "Places of..." categories are for generic sets such as
Category:Places of worship; and not specific places like particular states, counties, parks (e.g., the battlefield), townships, or landforms. (I work with Long Island Lyn and he sometimes proofreads my edits before I post. Thanks Lynwood!)
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
16:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Are you referring to my edits and the previous poster's edits?--because if so, your claim is blatantly false. I have about 500 edits posted in the last 6 months (doubtfully more than 100 per month) and I don't know how many Target has. Even if he has less than 12 even before he got a username, the combined number is in the hundres. And why is that point about "Places of..." interesting? Not only did Selinker identify it when he closed the discussion with the conflict of interest--one can just search "Category:Places of" and see that the convention is for generic sets like
Category:Places of worship and not specific regions like
Category:Places of North America,
Category:Places of Pennsylvania, or
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. (The search took me only about a minute). Was it your intent to make up the "combined 12 posts" claim? Nice troll, tho'--it got me to study (and rebut) all the BS from opposers (particularly you).
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Closing comment. I closed this as: don't merge. This isn't a "Keep" since there are no other "Places of the" categories, so it seems likely to change again. But not into
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. However, I see no reason to stand on ceremony given that other opinions have come forth. Let's keep this open for a couple more days and see what happens.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, so you're the guy who nominated
Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to be merged--even previously agreeing for it to be merged to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield--and now weeks later end a discussion for it to be merged? Fishy (thanks Lake for pointing that out.). And why did you withhold your rationale for your ridiculous claim "But not into Category:Gettysburg Battlefield"--e.g., Starcheerswhatever et al clearly identify the reasons that category needs populated. Even more importantly, the one guy above distinctly pointed out the C2D policy applies, and all the "Gettysburg Battlefield" other wiki-entities are well-defined: as an article, as a commons category, plus all the subcategories like
Category:Events on the Gettysburg Battlefield (which even Starcheerswhatever agrees goes in
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield). Maybe you'll do the courtesy of justifying your unbelievable flip-flop to oppose--hopefully not with falsehoods like Starcheerswhatever has done. And why didn't you identify your post with the oppose claim as an "oppose", BTW? Very fishy.
69.46.35.69 (
talk)
18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Wow, you really like throwing around allegations. But you are right that I shouldn't have closed this nomination. I had forgotten about that November nomination, where a similarly dramatic IP address-only editor convinced me about merging to
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. Had I remembered it, I would not have closed this one.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
18:38, 10 January 2012 (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:New templates
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.
Probably. It certainly makes more sense as an automated process than as a manual category that's only ever been used by the guy who created the category.
Theoldsparkle (
talk)
16:29, 3 January 2012 (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:Films of Weimar Germany
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.
Oppose -- The Weimar Republic existed for a period of German history. However, a reader from (say) South America will not necessarily know what it is. I therefore consider that the retention of Germany in the title is desirable. Categories usually follow article, but not necessarily.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Echo what Bushranger stated below. The category should have the correct name to match the time period, and the cat can have a simple link/intro at the top explaining what The Weimar Republic is. Lugnuts (
talk)
18:35, 1 January 2012 (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:Films of the Third Reich
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:Films about communists
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 - We shouldn't be categorising "films about communists" - it's nebulously defined. It's entirely possible to have a film about somebody who was a communist, with the film itself having nothing significant about communism in it at all. Films about communism, however is a very defining feature of said films, and the films about communists, in which their communist affiliation is the point of the film, are, indeed, films about communism. -
The BushrangerOne ping only08:24, 31 December 2011 (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:Children's books about death
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 result of the discussion was:delete. There doesn't seem to be a strong desire to keep this category on its merits. While interesting, Jenks24's attribution argument gives a category power that no category should have.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: See also the similarly deleted "Children's films about death" category by the same user. A book in which someone dies or in which death is mentioned is not a "book about death." It could be a useful list - unfortunately
Children's books about death, by the same user, seems to contain a lot of original research and to be more about "death in children's literature," ie. where the book is not generally "about" death in any meaningful way. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
06:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Note: The {{
copied}} template at
Talk:Children's books about death reads "Text from :Category:Children's books about death was copied into Children's books about death with this edit. Category:Children's books about death now serves to provide attribution for that content in Children's books about death and must not be deleted so long as Children's books about death exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history; for its talk page, see Category talk:Children's books about death." Unfortunately, I don't think this category should be deleted because attribution for that article would be lost.
Jenks24 (
talk)
06:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
*facepalm* There should be a way to get around that, though - move the category page to a subpage of the article talk page for attribution purposes, and delete the subsequent redirect. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
RenameDeath in children's literature would seem to me to be more appropriate. The number of children's books which are "about" death is relatively small. Books in which a character has to come to terms with the death of a key individual as part of his or her personal journey in the story are more common, although the death may not be the main plot driver. Death is a theme that children's literature professionals (teachers, librarians) are asked about from time to time. There may be some issues around the main article in its current state but that doesn't invalidate the category, I believe. --
CharlieDelta (
talk)
16:33, 30 December 2011 (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:Software systems
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.
Sure. The articles can go in
Category:Software. (Some of the articles need further refinement.) I checked each of the subcategories, and they're already linked from the parents where they should be (
Category:Computer systems,
Category:Software, or other topics), so this category can just be removed. I changed my request to upmerge articles only, then delete. –
Pnm (
talk)
21:00, 30 December 2011 (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:Programming bugs
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:Mac OS X music creation software
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:Computer telephony software
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.