Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

December 30[edit]

Category:Ships damaged by aircraft[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Ships damaged by aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; this isn't defining. I'm also less certain than the nom that damage by kamikaze is defining. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 31 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[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Baby Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (links to redirect link, redundant to Category:Albums produced by Da Beatminerz)
Category:Albums produced by E-Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (links to redirect link)
Category:Albums produced by Dot da Genius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (links to redirect link)
Category:Albums produced by The Inkredibles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (links to redlink)
Category:Albums produced by Young RJ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (links toredlink)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Categories for music producers that either link to redlink deleted articles or redirects. QuasyBoy 20:27, 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:NGC objects templates[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NGC objects templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category only has one object in it. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:43, 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:Gettysburg Battlefield[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Propose merging Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield
Nominator's information: I came across this category in a round-about way when I was looking for articles on the Gettysburg Battlefield. Category:Gettysburg Battlefield only has a few of the articles and I saw it had lots of links to Commons and was categorized in numerous parent categories (someone removed them). Category:Gettysburg Battlefield now redirects the reader to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign which is almost entirely filled with articles and subcategories about the Gettysburg Battlefield and has no other battlefield articles (and of ~100 subcategories and articles only 4 non-Gettysburg places are listed--all populated places and not battlefield articles). Then I saw there are Category:Events on the Gettysburg Battlefield and Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield subcategories which have a whole bunch of other Gettysburg Battlefield articles (the latter I placed in Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign and added the links that had been in the Gettysburg Battlefield category). Shouldn't all the Gettysburg Battlefield articles and subcategories be in one place?
Rationale: Right now the problem is the Gettysburg Battlefield articles are spread over 3 categories and merging Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Gettysburg Battlefield (and diffusing Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign) will enssure a single populated category for the subject with the same name as the article Gettysburg Battlefield. Lake Woodhouse in Denver 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.54.68 (talk)
  • Oppose – Category:Gettysburg Battlefield was made into a redirect to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign via a cfd and a speedy and should not have any articles or sub- or super-cats. (IMO the previous cfd was wrong, but so is this. Upmerging from specific ('places') to vague is rarely a good idea.) Occuli (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (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]
1. It is false to claim Category:Gettysburg Battlefield is an "eponymous category" (it's not even populated, and epo cats always are). The eponymous category for battlefields is Category:Categories named after battlefields, which it appears Starcheerswhatever is now recommending be created and which would be a sibling of Category:Categories named after populated places and Category:Categories named after military operations.
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.
5. Category:Populated places in Fayette County, Pennsylvania is named "Populated places..." with the adjective "populate", and Category:Places of Fayette County, Pennsylvania doesn't exist and never will. So again Starcheerswhatever is misleading readers by comparing apples/oranges, since the nomination is NOT about Category:Populated places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Of course there are numerous populated places on the battlefield (even the federal area is populated such as the Field of Pickett's Charge) so again, his irrationale claim is a recommendation for that category...  :)
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]
Why was this closed so early?[edit]
  • 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]
    • Note - This was closed all of 26 minutes early, with solid opposition. Opposing this is not advocating "all categories be renamed...", see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 7 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 misreprensentation of my comments as I said Category:Gettysburg Battlefield can exist as a possible parent category to logical subcategories (places, events) BUT a discussion amongst experienced editors on the subject is needed (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history would be a good place to start). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:34, 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]
  • 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]
That's interesting coming from two editors who had a combined 12 posts prior to this discussion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:18, 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[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: User:Stevertigo created this category in February 2009. Of the twelve templates in the category, eleven were created by Stevertigo and added to the category in the first half of 2009. (The one exception is this July 2010 userspace draft: User:JimWae/template:No-Nonce.) I see no indication that anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates, or elsewhere, is making use of this category. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:06, 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:Films of Weimar Germany[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films of Weimar Germany to Category:Films of the Weimar Republic
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article and {{Country data Weimar Republic}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    Even though I agree with Lugnuts and The Bushranger, I've added a link to Weimar Republic for clarity. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If people don't recognise the Weimar Republic as being Germany, then they need better history teachers. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 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[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films of the Third Reich to Category:Films of Nazi Germany
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article and {{Country data Nazi Germany}}. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per ze nominator. Lugnuts (talk) 13:19, 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:Films about communists[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Films about communists to Category:Films about communism
Nominator's rationale: Broaden scope of category. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a film about a communist need not be about communism at all. It could be a film about Che's love life, which wouldn't be about communism. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 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[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. 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]
Category:Children's books about death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
  • A better description may be "Children's stories where death occurs" or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this actually a useful way of categorizing anything? Particularly as the user seems to be trying to include fairy tales –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment articles should not be using categories as sources. This procedure does not even make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Death 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]
    • A category that could include any children's book in which someone died would be meaningless. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category at present is being misused, the proposed alternative would be way to broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this category is clearly currently using "books" not "stories". These are not synonyms and should not be treated as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 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:Software systems[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: upmerge articles. I will ask Pnm to do the upmerging.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Software systems to Category:Software
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge articles only, and delete Based on an unclear definition at software system which seems to include any type of software. The category's contents seem arbitrary, and most articles would be better placed in subcategories of Category:Application software or Category:System software. General articles could stay in Category:Software. Pnm (talk) 01:58, 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[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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Programming bugs to Category:Software bugs
Nominator's rationale: Rename per main article. Pnm (talk) 01:38, 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:Mac OS X music creation software[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mac OS X music creation software to Category:Mac OS X audio editors
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nothing music-specific here. Corresponds to Category:Audio editors and its subcategories. Pnm (talk) 01:14, 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:Computer telephony software[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 C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Computer telephony software to Category:Telephony software
Nominator's rationale: Rename per Telephony and Category:Telephony. "Computer" here seems redundant. Pnm (talk) 00:28, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_30&oldid=1074807187"