< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

Category:US Army All-American football players

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:US Army All-American football players to Category:U.S. Army All-American football players. --Xdamrtalk 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:US Army All-American football players to Category:U.S. Army All-American football players
Nominator's rationale: U.S. is generally written with the periods, and most other categories with "U.S. Army" use the periods, as do our articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2009 (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:University at Buffalo

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:University at Buffalo to Category:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. --Xdamrtalk 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:University at Buffalo to Category:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match title of parent article University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (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:Ruling clans of India

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:Ruling clans of India to Category:Dynasties of India. --Xdamrtalk 08:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ruling clans of India to Category:Former dynasties of India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Ruling clans" is too POV, and also lets folks just chuck in random clan names which once provided a ruler or two to some larger dynasty. Note also that all the other language wikis linked are "Dynasties of India" or similar. I'm open to "Dynasties of" or "Former dynasties of", with the latter maybe being more precise since these dynasties are generally defunct. WP:INDIA has already been discussing this issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed cats Category:Dynasties of Bengal, Category:Dynasties of Morocco, Category:Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, etc. Plus all the other language wikis have "Dynasties of India". I'm wary of "Royal families of Foo" since that's open to the POV-pushing of "my most famous and prestigious noble Bhoite clan produced a king who reigned for four months in 1836, so Bhoite is a royal family." MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Maybe no other country has such a category, but for example Germany, which is the best European comparison to India, could certainly do with one, splitting Category:German noble houses between the independent princes of the Holy Roman Empire & other nobility. To many people "Royal families of India" would suggest families who had been kings/emperors of india, which of course is not the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Considering that India being a democracy and a republic there are dynasties are no more ruling it or parts of it. So all the dynasties are former dynasties. Therefore we can avoid "former" word and rename ruling clans category to just Category:Dynasties of India.Other dynasties categories named above also do not have "former" prefix. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is too tall an order, but is there any way to phrase the cat so as to avoid the abovementioned COI issues? I'm just concerned (based on precedent) that people will be trying to categorise an entire clan/name/ethnicity as "royal" because one or two members thereof held some sort of "royal" position at some point. Note that currently the entire cat Category:Maratha clans is jammed in there. Is every Maratha clan "ruling" or "royal"? Well, according to some of the POV pushers at least... MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rajahs were certainly rulers, and majarajahs in the Middle Ages often ruled larger populations than any European monarch. Calling many of the more important older dynasties such as the Mughals, Cholas etc "princes" would be very POV & inappropriate. Category:Ruling families of India avoids some of these issues, perhaps with a "former2, although I doubt that is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does Category:Ruling families of India solve the problems inherent in the current Category:Ruling clans of India? It's basically the same thing, and again allows people to put basically every Maratha category in there on the justification that "they're all royal families". MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Families" is a great deal more restrictive than "clans" & if applied properly would greatly reduce the number of articles in the category (I know there is an issue over how far to extend a "family", but even so). Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested "former" was unnecessary with "ruling familes"; I think this is less the case with "dynasties", but will do with consensus on that. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2009 (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:Destroyer classes of the Netherlands

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. --Xdamrtalk 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Destroyer classes of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per previous CFDs (one, two) which have found "ship class by country" categories redundant. All members of the category are in the appropriate categories already, so if consensus is to delete, no re-categorization is necessary. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (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 performance optimization

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:Software optimization. While it is outside the scope of this nomination, it may be worth considering renaming the main article itself to Software optimization (currently a redirect to Program optimization). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Software performance optimization to Category:Program optimization
Nominator's rationale: gbook search for "program optimization" returns hundreds of hits. "software performance optimization" returns only a handful. I did not even bother mentioning the latter in the category's article as a synonym because of this. Pcap ping 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Pcap ping 17:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Software optimization. I can go along with that. That alternative is clear. Ikluft (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2009 (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:Wild Beast class destroyers

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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wild Beast class destroyers to Category:Wild Beast class destroyers (1912)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article, Wild Beast class destroyer (1912) and to disambiguate from Category:Wild Beast class destroyers (1951). — Bellhalla (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (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:Acquisitions by Google

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 Category:Acquisitions by Google to Category:Google acquisitions, with no prejudice for nominating Category:Google acquisitions (and other similarly-named subcategories of Category:Mergers and acquisitions) for renaming to the Acquisitions by Foo or Companies acquired by Foo format. The discussion is basically a "no consensus" concerning the question of what the category title should be, but there is consensus that two categories are not needed. Consolidating them now will make any future nomination to rename less complicated. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Acquisitions by Google to Category:Google acquisitions
Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate of an already existing category. The existing category has a name that is consistent with similar categories like Category:Microsoft acquisitions and Category:Cisco Systems acquisitions. Mysdaao talk 14:16, 1 September 2009 (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 language stubs

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: Move to WP:SFD at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/September/1#Category:Computer language stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Computer language stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Since we don't have an article on "computer language" for almost a year now, I propose this category be deleted. The only reason I'm doing this busy work rater than redirecting ((compu-lang-stub)) to ((PL-stub)) is that an administrator thinks it is necessary and undid my redirect although he has no comment on content of my action, only the form thereof. Pcap ping 10:49, 1 September 2009 (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:Political treaties

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. --Xdamrtalk 08:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Political treaties to Category:Treaties
Nominator's rationale: Merge. All treaties are "political". There is no such discrete concept of a "political treaty". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is other categories "by topic" like Category:Secret diplomatic agreements, Category:Peace treaties, Category:Military alliances, Category:Unequal Treaties, Category:Arms control treaties, Category:Free trade agreements etc. are all pretty clearly "political", so this ends up as a very small "political, other" category, it seems to me - unless it is hugely underpopulated, which is possible. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (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:Possible impact craters

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:Possible impact craters to Category:Possible impact craters on Earth. --Xdamrtalk 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Possible impact craters to Category:Possible impact craters on Earth
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a subcategory of Category:Impact craters on Earth, and there are possible impact craters off-Earth, so this should be renamed to match its parent, and to be clear about what it categorizes. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the notability of impact craters off Earth. It isalways possible that a few of the are or will be notable. Like a landing of a space vehicle in one of them. Or a sience fiction story taking place in one. Could you do me a favor? Could you explain this thing about notability to the idiot who created thousands of asteroid stubs? Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I didn't call you that. :-) The problem is we're talking about categorization. There need to be articles before there's a category. This renaming proposal is based on the concept that there may some day be articles about possible impact craters off Earth. WP:CRYSTAL says we don't play guessing games - we wait for things to actually happen, or at least get published. Ikluft (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL?? Since when has clarity and reducing maintenance headaches been a bad thing in category names? This is done all the time at CFD. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the articles about possible impacts off Earth? There aren't any. So it would be WP:CRYSTAL to claim that the point to the renaming is that there may some day be some. Ikluft (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point which I'm not sure you were asking... for craters off Earth, yes, plenty are notable. There's just no doubt about their impact origin, and therefore wouldn't be in a "possible" category. See the various subcats of Category:Impact craters other than Category:Impact craters on Earth. "Possible" impact craters are currently only on Earth. Adding "on Earth" is redundant - and there's no reason to expect that will change. Ikluft (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar craters are all from impacts, no doubt about the origin. Impacts are the only form of erosion on the moon. Ikluft (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2009 (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:Healthcare in Brunei

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. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Healthcare in Brunei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. this category only contains hospitals in Brunei and duplicates and is very similar to the category Health in Brunei. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2009 (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:V class destroyers

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:Greek V class destroyers. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:V class destroyers to Category:Greek V class destroyers or Category:Greek V1 class destroyers or Category:V1 class destroyers of the Hellenic Navy or Category:???
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category needs some sort of disambiguation to keep British ships that should be in Category:V and W class destroyers from being miscategorized. The main article for the ship class is at Greek V class destroyer, but I have no reference materials to know if "Greek V class destroyer" is how the ships are referred to, or if this was just an invented name. The ship class consists of two German V1-class destroyers, so I don't know if it should really by "Greek V1 class destroyers". The other option—"V1 class destroyers of the Hellenic Navy"—matches the naming style used for other multi-navy ship class categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2009 (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:Treaties involving territorial changes

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: Self-withdrawal; I agree with Otto's point and am willing to work on implementing this distinction manually. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Treaties involving territorial changes to Category:Boundary treaties
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are essentially duplicate categories. The nominated category may imply a more dramatic change—a transfer of territory from one state to the other. The target category may imply a lesser change—a tweaking of a boundary or a final settlement of a disputed boundary. However, ultimately the difference is only one of degree, and the categories should be merged since there's no clear line as to when a "boundary treaty" becomes one that "involves territorial changes". I find the target category to be more NPOV, since a treaty might settle a territorial dispute in the way that one state claimed it existed in reality all along. From that state's perspective, no "territorial change" in fact took place at all—it just legally confirmed its claim over the territory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2009 (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.
More