Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 16 March 18 >

March 17[edit]

Category:Los Angeles area museums[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: no consensus. As noted, there are two suggestions that can be defined: Category:Museums in Los Angeles and Category:Museums in Los Angeles County, however, there is not consensus for either of those. Anything else is not well defined (what exactly is the "greater LA area", anyway?), and without a clear definition, you cannot say whether or not a museum is part of the "area". Unfortunately, that leaves us with Category:Los Angeles area museums. A renomination is probably in order. Kbdank71 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles area museums to Category:Museums in Los Angeles
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other categories of Category:Museums by city. I don't think the name needs to limit this to the Greater LA area even thought that is what the introduction states. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if renamed, prune all museums not within the city limits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pruning would be unfortunate. Many museums associated with L.A. don't fall in the city limits, which is probably the reason for the unorthodox name in the first place. On a quick look I found that other members of Museums by city seem to include museums outside of the city limits. Alternatively, a rename to Category:Museums in the Greater Los Angeles area, to match the article Greater Los Angeles area, might avoid this problem. I haven't seen other similarly-named categories, though. Rigadoun (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually consider the greater LA area as noted above. However LA is ambiguous. As pointed out in the discussion at WP:RM, it could be the city, county, the basin or the area. I'm wondering if this rename and discussion could be the forward going solution. When there are multiple uses for the settlement and some of them don't lie in the major city, then we just use the major settlement name in the category. In this case it would be understood that it covers all of the ambiguous areas. A valid subcat for the settlement proper would be using the 'city, state', along with the 'county, state', the metropolitan area or any other local classification. Vegaswikian (talk 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the areas in Los Angeles County are major settlement areas in themselves (Pasadena has approximately 100,000 residents) so it would be somewhat insulting to consider these communities as "Los Angeles". Using "Los Angeles County" would be the best choice IMHO. Neighboring counties, all of which have large populations, should have their own, separate listings. It makes no geographical, demographical, or political sense to include them in the Los Angeles category. Lmonteros (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Museums in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I'm changing my opinion based on several related city type discussions. Since there no longer appears to be a consensus to use any city related category to include the surrounding areas, the name needs to reflect this. This is a broader name then the current one and it can include subcats for the city if that level of detail is required. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! Hold on just a minute, folks. - I'm afraid that "Los Angeles metropolitan area" is no better than "Greater Los Angeles Area". No matter what the Wiki article claims, neither term is clearly defined. If you had asked me last week, just off the top of my head, I would have said they mean roughly the same thing. I spent about half my life living in one or another part of the "Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area" -- yes, that term is also in use -- and I can tell you that, even though all of these terms are widely used, the average person has only a very fuzzy notion of what they mean. The problem is, there is no single, agreed-upon definition for the "Los Angeles metropolitan area", as the following excerpts -- none of which agree with the Wiki article -- demonstrate very clearly:
  • The Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers (sounds authoritative, doesn't it?) refers to "The five-county metropolitan region of Los Angeles..."
  • But the Center for Housing Policy, in Washington, DC, in a publication called, "Housing Challenges Facing Working Families in the Los Angeles, CA Metropolitan Area", states: "The Los Angeles metropolitan area is defined as Los Angeles County, CA [emphasis added] according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development."
  • And then there's the Encarta article on Los Angeles, Section II: Los Angeles and Its Metropolitan Area, which states:
"The City of Los Angeles is the seat of Los Angeles County, which includes most of the Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area. In turn, Los Angeles County is at the heart of the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), a vast metropolitan region that stretches from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the San Gabriel Mountains in the north to the Mohave Desert in the east and to the San Diego Metropolitan Statistical Area in the south."

So, we've come full circle. Methinks the only workable solution is the name I proposed above, Category:Museums in Los Angeles County, which has the very real virtue of simplicity and clarity of definition.

We can, in addition, create other county categories, if we wish to. And we can also consider creating an umbrella category, Category:Museums in Southern California, as I suggested above, for the sub-cats and for museums in counties outside of Los Angeles, San Diego, and perhaps Orange County (or whatever may be appropriate). Southern CA, though imperfect, is much better defined than Metro LA. But that's another discussion that doesn't necessarily have to be resolved here. Cgingold (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the county include the basin and the metro area? If not, then that still poses an issue as the umbrella category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Basin is fundamentally a geological feature, covering the central/southern part of LA County and extending into northern Orange Co. -- but it excludes the San Fernando & San Gabriel valleys, as well as the local mountain ranges, all of which are an integral part of LA County. (The Getty Center, for example, is in the Santa Monica Mtns. overlooking the Basin.) As I've already explained, the "metro area" is too fuzzy a concept to serve as a useful Category. Unfortunately, there's no simple, elegant solution. As far as I can see, the only workable "umbrella category" would be Category:Museums in Southern California, with sub-cats for LA Co., Orange Co., San Diego, etc. (whatever makes sense). Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (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:Sri Lankan belief system[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 into Category:Religion in Sri Lanka. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Sri Lankan belief system to Category:Religion in Sri Lanka
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Delete, "Sri Lanka" or being "Sri Lankan" is not a religion or "belief system", nor is there one monolithic "Sri Lankan" belief system — people there are Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim or Christian or whatever — but I think the intended purpose of the category is probably to, well, categorise articles about religion in Sri Lanka. (Article in the new category is already present in the target category, but I'm proposing a merge rather than a delete in case other articles get added.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I have recategorised the single article to "Buddhism in SL" where it belongs. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there's something you must understand. There are religious and semi-religious practices that are unique to Sri Lanka. And some of them can't be divided by Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim or Christian or whatever. Hope you'll give this your consideration!--දීපා‍‍‍‍ලෝක (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Buddhism is mentioneed in the article. Are you saying he features in Hindu or Christian worship as well? Given the local history it seems unlikely. If so he could also go in the geberal religion, or culture, category. He is now in Category:Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Most countries have unique religious features, but do not have equivalent categories. It is not the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that there are religious practices that are unique to Sri Lanka, but really why can't articles about such things be included in Category:Religion in Sri Lanka? It can also be included in appropriate subcategories if necessary, as Johnbod has done. More than anything else, the new category is just redundant, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (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:Glutamate & cooking[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: rename to Category:Umami enhancers. the wub "?!" 11:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Glutamate & cooking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category and the criteria for article inclusion is not very clear (maybe I just don't understand the topic). At the very least, it should be renamed to something like "Glutamate and cooking". ✤ JonHarder talk 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the explanation on the category's page and the list of contents, it seems to be a "Category:Foods using glutamate"/"Category:Foods that include glutamate" (or perhaps "Foodstuffs"). Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest a slightly different angle. Glutamate appears in almost all foods, and is really boosted in most processed foods. The items in the category are the key ingredients in cuisines worldwide that are added to food specifically to add a "round flavor", to boost the umami, which is accomplished by adding a significant amount of glutimate to the dish. In other words, a primary and common characteristic of these foods is their extremely high glutamate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • New title and clearer rationale
Thank you for the good comments about a poorly chosen category name, and a vague purpose. I have clarified both. The suggested new name is Major umami sources, and I have edited the rationale on the page to better explain the purpose. If this satisfies the group, please move the category name, and unlock this page.
  • Rationale
Interesting points. Here's the rationale. Umami (the fifth taste) is in addition to the core tastes of sweet, sour, bitter, and salty. The sensation of Umami is caused by glutamate, and it is an interesting unifying theme in cuisines worldwide, and is the reason MSG is popular. Soy sauce and Parmesan cheese actually are more similar than they are different, both adding a significant amount of glutamate to any meal, rounding off the flavors. Since wikipedia is interesting in cross-cultural issues, glutamate (like sugar, salt, etc) is a unifying theme that appears on all continents, and uniquely developed in different cuisines. Unlike sugar which is available in fruits; and salt was was mined, collected from the sea, and traded; Glutamate-containing-sauces were generally indigenous. I can discuss this more, but I think many people interested in food would find this common theme interesting. In fact, chefs can actually swap glutamate-heavy ingredients, e.g., using soy sauce and lime, or fish sauce and lime -- because the underlying chemistry is similar. .... This might be too wordy or unpersuasive an explanation. renaming is totally ok. It could be renamed "umami and cooking" or "umami across the world" (wxidea) ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I guess a decision also needs to made whether the category name uses the taste word ("umami") or the ingredient word ("glutamate"). I know I'm not sufficiently informed to say. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think maybe I was over-chemically in choosing the molecule (glutamate) rather than the result (umami). Consider if we were talking about "sweeteners", with the entries being honey, corn syrup, sugar, etc. Since this issue arose, I'd say "Umami" might be better. Maybe "Major Umami sources" is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing foods by their ingredients is untenable. Foods or dishes with complex recipes could end up in dozens of such categories. Otto4711 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagreed. You miss the point. This is NOT categorizing foods but their ingredients. These are the top sources of glutamate used worldwide. The list of top sources is probably less than 100. There's maybe 1-5 major sources per region of the world. We are not including Doritos. The list is major sources used in cooking. I will clarify the description on the category page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 06:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The speedy rename was pulled since it does not fit any of the criteria. I would like to know why this can not be listified. At this time, I am strongly leaning towards a delete. If the category needs a book for the introduction, then it probably is too ambiguous to function as a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make list, pretty much per Vegaswikian's comment above. To me this topics seems way more amenable to a list/article than a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - after reading through the commentary and explanations I better understand the issues than when I originally nominated this category for deletion. I believe the original editor is on the right track. It makes good sense to rename the category. Perhaps part of the problem is that umami is a fairly new idea, and even more so for Westerners like me who have been aware of the concept for only a decade or so. As stated above, this category is intended to parallel Category:Sweeteners, and would be no more of a problem deciding which articles to include than that category has. I think a better name than "Major Umami sources" can be found. Thinking sweeteners again, the equivalent would be "Major sugar sources", making me think of sugar cane and sugar beats, which isn't quite what is wanted. Maybe Umami enhancers is getting closer to what is wanted? On a somewhat off-topic note, the umami article itself could use a lot of improvement. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate names: Thanks for all these comments. I do think a category makes sense, analogous to "Sweeteners." Jon, in response to your comments... I agree one possible source of original concern from editors is the relative unfamiliarity to Umami in the west -- though the solution to that is to educate readers, not exclude the topics. Umami is a sense, not a thing, so "major umami sources" is analogous to "major sweetness sources" not "major sugar sources." I can try to further clarify the category page. Another option is "umami ingredients" or just "umami sources". If we move this to renaming (not deleting), what's the official wiki procedure? Wxidea (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing? -- If and when is this survey and discussion closed? Can a new talk be opened for renaming? I will try to do this -- suggesting "umami ingredients". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Umami ingredients. It is not only glutamate that provides umami. Сасусlе 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Umami ingredients. There appears to be no further debate on this. As the original author of this category, I am supportive of Category:Umami ingredients. What's the procedure for making the move? Wxidea (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Category:Umami enhancers" similar to "Category:Sweeteners". The category provides a nice overview of articles dealing with this topic. I think "Category:Umami ingredients" would shift the focal point slightly.--Vierzehn (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Category:Umami enhancers" is fine with me. Wxidea (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2008 (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:Theatres, galleries, museums and historical buildings in Aberdeen[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. Kbdank71 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theatres, galleries, museums and historical buildings in Aberdeen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unweildy 'conglomerate' category. We do not have comparative cats for other cities (or at least I cannot find any). Mais oui! (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most articles were being added by a template. Template names are generally poor choices for category names. The articles already had good category names so updating the template removed most of the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2008 (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:Motown artists[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: rename. Kbdank71 18:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Motown artists to Category:Motown Records artists
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category should be consistent with the other categories for record labels. FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (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.

Sports teams by country[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: rename all. Kbdank71 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Several recent discussions about hockey, baseball, and basketball teams have resulted in naming the categories Sport teams in Country. With those results, and an objectionless discussion here, I had planned to update WP:NCCAT to reflect that sports teams in a country would be named accordingly. The hitch is that the link I was going to add would end up pointing to Category:Sports teams by country, where most of the categories are not currently named according to the recent discussions. This nomination is to accomplish the goal of renaming the sports teams categories to match their parent categories (found mostly in Category:Sports by country), and then to update WP:NCCAT to match. Neier (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (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:Salatut elämät[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. Kbdank71 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Salatut elämät (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2008 (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:Blue Murder (TV series)[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. Kbdank71 18:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blue Murder (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Otto4711 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2008 (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 ships disposed of as targets[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. Kbdank71 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy ships disposed of as targets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete and listify - Perhaps I'm missing something, but I just don't see a good rationale for this as a navigational category. It doesn't strike me as the sort of basic organizing principle that comes to mind when one considers the fundamental issues that naval ships have (or don't have) in common with other naval ships. If a reader wants a complete inventory of ships that were deep-sixed in this manner, a list-article would make a lot more sense, in my estimation. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Doesn't violate any policies, and seems a useful category: of course most ships aren't disposed of by their owners making them intentional targets. Ships aren't people, but we have categories for people by how they died (base category Category:Deaths by cause), so what's wrong with having this category for a way a ship "died"? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What might actually be useful would be a list-article, as I suggested (which could group the ships in various ways and include other pertinent facts). The fact that these ships were disposed of in this manner is not the sort of critically important (i.e. "defining") piece of information that serves a valuable function as a Category. It strikes me as, frankly, trivial for most anybody other than the relatively few people who may have served on a particular ship -- especially compared to the many other sorts of things that might hypothetically be proposed as naval Categories. As far as I can see, we don't even have categories for "ships that were disabled or sunk in combat", ferkrisake. So unless I am utterly missing something of extraordinary significance about the fact that these ships were destroyed in target practice, I'm afraid I just don't see a valid rationale for keeping this category. Cgingold (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there even an article devoted to the use/sinking of retired naval ships in target practice? (If there is, I was unable to find it.) Cgingold (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if 'disposed of as target', or other method of sinking, etc, were an interesting and appropriate axis to categorise on, the intersection with country of origin seems a little arbitrary. So delete in present form, at a minimum, either entirely, or upmerging to a broader category omitting that feature. Alai (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2008 (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:Missile weapons[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: relisted on mar 28. Kbdank71 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missile weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:ROTC graduates[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. Kbdank71 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:ROTC graduates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: ROTC is a training program leading to commissioning as an officer. It is not a degree granting institution, and people do not "graduate" from ROTC (I was commissioned through ROTC myself. I never graduated from ROTC). My personal preference is to delete this category - I don't feel it is a defining characteristic. However, at the very least, if the choice is made to keep, the name should be changed to something along the lines of Category:Reserve Officer Training Corps commissioned officers. --Nobunaga24 (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2008 (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:Alien[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: rename to Category:Alien (franchise). Kbdank71 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We also have Category:Alien (film series) covering identical ground. There needs to be a merger one way or the other - possibly into a new category with a less ambiguous/more accurate name such as Category:Alien (entertainment franchise). Grutness...wha? 06:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially hoping to recategorize everything from Category:Alien (film series) into Category:Alien, so as not to restrict it to just the films, but I see how this is problematic from a naming perspective. I might suggest Category:Alien and Predator, since the Wikiproject covering this subject encompasses both topics. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories aren't usually named to cater for individual WikiProject names, though I can see some merit in the suggestion. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be more useful, as the 2 franchises have been officially tied together for almost 20 years in comics, games, and movies, and because individual categories for each franchise would be quite small. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Alien (media franchise). Current name is too ambiguous, "entertainment franchise" is a little awkward, "Alien and Predator" is wholly artificial. Alai (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Alien (franchise) to match other franchises so named. I don't know if it is planned, but there could be articles about non-media topics related to the series. - LA @ 19:40, 24 March 2008 (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:Palestinian weapons[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: rename Category:Palestinian mortars to Category:Palestinian rockets, no consensus on Category:Palestinian weapons. Kbdank71 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Palestinian mortars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • I have no objection in principle to Category:Palestinian weapons, but at present there's no need for it since we have no articles about any kind of weapon other than rockets. Do you know of any such articles that are in the offing? If there's a high level of certainty that they will actually be written in the near future I'd be willing to reconsider. Otherwise, why not just wait, and re-create the category if & when it's needed? Cgingold (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Cgingold, there is no rule or requirement that a category must always have a related article, indeed many times they don't. In this case, there is actually a gaping need for an article about Palestinian weapons because the Pelestinians are involved in a serious armed conflict and they utilize a vast variety of conventional, semi-conventional and unconventional weapons. IZAK (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, IZAK. Just to be clear, I'm not in the least concerned as to whether or not there's a main article for this category. The only issue is that there are no articles about weapons other than the articles dealing with rockets, which have already got their own categories. Now, if you happen to know for a fact that such articles are actually in the works -- and not merely hoped for -- then we could keep Category:Palestinian weapons. But if they're not literally in the works right now, there's no good reason to keep the category; it can be re-created if & when the need arises. This is really pretty straightforward, I don't see any reason to treat this any differently than any other category. Cgingold (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to stick in my two cents, there are some existing articles that can be added to this category, such as Suicide bomber. Keyed In (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no -- please don't put Suicide bomber in there. The explosive vest or belt is a weapon, but the person wearing it isn't! Cgingold (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Seriously though, can't explosive belt be in this category? The Palestinians contributed greatly to its development even if they didn't invent it. Does that suffice to be included in Category:Weapons by country? Keyed In (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a good question. My sense is that these categories are intended to be used only for specific weapons that are developed and produced by a given country. I don't really think that a generic weapon such as an explosive belt would qualify in that regard. Cgingold (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would agree that making Category:Palestinian weapons part of Category:Weapons by country bolsters the case for keeping it. But I'm not sure it's required. Is there any reason we can't simply make Category:Palestinian rockets a direct sub-cat of Category:Weapons by country? As far as I know, there's nothing that would disallow doing that. Cgingold (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Palestine' is not a country. Placing this cat in the suprt-cat 'by country' opens the pandora's box of having to add every other grouping as well. Anyone think 'Kurdish weapons' is justified? --Shuki (talk)
    • Palestine generally is a subcategory of most "by country" categories already. Unlike the Kurds, the Palestinians do have at least some autonomy and a quasi-government that acts at least superficially as the overseer over a defined area of land. I think there is a significant difference in the examples you cite. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (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:Twins (band) members[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: speedy rename (creator).--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Twins (band) members to Category:Twins members
Nominator's rationale: No other musical group in Wikipedia's article database is named "Twins". Pandacomics (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection. I created this, and I'm happy to make the change and close this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2008 (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:Life on Mars (TV series)[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. Kbdank71 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Life on Mars (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV show. Otto4711 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (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:Ashes to Ashes (TV series)[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. Kbdank71 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ashes to Ashes (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Otto4711 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_17&oldid=1138390851"