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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. — ξxplicit 04:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – these are redundant to the 'by state' schemes. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call these categories redundant, but needless. Category:Southern United States already categorizes each state, which all lead to their respective People from Foo categories. — ξxplicit 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appropriate parents for the categories within them organized by state. Alansohn (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unclear. Which states are the Southern United States#Geography? There is no one answer. I am amused when I am told that Virginia is not really part of the South, whereas Richmond was the Confederate capital. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:τᴀʟĸ 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:05, 9 October 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]
keep for the reasons I stated above; facts have not changed. Hmains (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hmains already !voted keep above, so this should not be counted twice. — ξxplicit 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm trying to figure out a valid reason why African American would be in this category. I'm trying. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 15 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.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Merge with Category:Buildings and structures. We do not like current and former categories. This one offends against the same principle. A building under construction is already a "structure" even if it is not yet a "building". Those that are merely planned are likely to fail WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 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:United States Navy in the Vietnam War[edit]
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:rename all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support all per nom and Shawn in Montreal. It is also an opportunity to clean up some the titles to give consistency. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all for consistency. jonkerz♠ 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bad idea as many of the documentaries are TV shows, not films. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess they need to be moved to Category:Documentary television series. But I think it is more useful to have one category for documentaries about X, instead of splitting it into one for TV and one for film when it is not obvious that the other exists. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:29, 17 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]
For what it's worth: As the closer of the above discussion, this is fine with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:57, 20 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[edit]
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:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent category isn't overwhelmingly large. This is also the only combination of genre + certification. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Eric444 (talk) 02:43, 12 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated. Also, the arguments are strong for a nomination of all the Category:Modern firearms categories to something else.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no country called "the Switzerland". Though we should reconsider the utility of categories such as Category:Modern firearms altogether; what does "modern" mean in this context? Sandstein 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See modern weapons (which I am not presuming to defend as an article). postdlf (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Speedy move on 'the Switzerland' issue. Neutral on 'modern' issue. Munci (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize into Switzerland categories for each type of firearm within Category:Firearms by country, unless already so categorized, then delete. --Bsherr (talk) 05:50, 16 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[edit]
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. No Wikipedia-project-related reason to distinguish. Bsherr (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this seems to be added by {{SharedIPCORP}}. I don't share the nom's confidence that there is no 'reason to distinguish'. Occuli (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me how I might secure your confidence? --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. If it's useless to the administration of the encyclopedia, why keep it? --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of the merge, this category and the target category need some sort of identifier showing this is a category for Wikipedia user pages, such as Category:Wikipedia user pages that are shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses, due to the possibility of confusion for someone thinking there is a series of articles on shared IP addresses or corporation/business IP addresses. VegaDark (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such is already proposed for the target category. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 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.
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:Keep as named. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose, per 76.66.200.95. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per two above. I would, however, support renaming the three examples in the rationale in the opposite direction. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:35, 15 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This appears to be the only author with a category dedicated to trilogies, and there are only four in the category. Also merge into Category:Literary trilogies. Tim! (talk) 08:37, 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category; delete and recategorize the one article with the parent categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as Armbrust: we only have a main article and no other content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 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:Official Apologies by United States of America[edit]
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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Ok, so rename to "Subjects of official apologies by the United States". Does that resolve the issue? (I also removed Native Americans in the United States because I don't see mention of an official apology in the article.) --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 10 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]
Does the creation of a list preclude the category? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 10 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]
Does the proposed rename above resolve the issue? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, IMO; it would solve the issue as I've phrased it, but would raise the new issue of "Why do we need this anyway, isn't it total WP:OCAT?" Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sections in WP:OCAT do you think it falls under? --Bsherr (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have Category:Apologies, so having this one category be this specific seems unneeded, especially for articles that are not about the apologies themselves.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't such a category "Apologies" be so overbroad as to be useless? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that contradict your argument? --Bsherr (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I wanted such a category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 20 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]
Delete per nom, Bearcat and Good Ol’factory. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 15 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.
