May 27
Category:USS Liberty
- 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:USS Liberty incident. The Bushranger One ping only 02:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This appears to be grouping a bunch of different ships that have been given the name Liberty (and some associated pages). Categories are not disambiguation pages and USS Liberty (a disambiguation page) serves the purpose nicely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Should be "moved" and reduced to Category:USS Liberty (AGTR-5). -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:USS Liberty incident and remove references to other ships. The bio articles all seem to be associated with the inquiry rather than the ship itself. Mangoe (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is grouping by like name. If someone wants to create a category about something specific, they are free to do that, but this is a category that should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hmmm. For some reason User:DePiep didn't say anything about what he had in mind when he created the category -- but I rather suspect that User:Mangoe is on the right track. It could make sense to rename as he suggested to Category:USS Liberty incident (and purge the non-germane articles). The only question in that regard is whether 4 articles is enough to warrant a category (the McCain article doesn't really belong since the Liberty incident is only mentioned in passing -- a single sentence in a lengthy article). Cgingold (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified that to the nomination here. I can also agree with Mangoe's proposal. Note: "For some reason ..." -- in general, what I had in mind when I created that category is to create that category. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, hinting at something is not the same as providing a clear explanation, and your closing comment doesn't exactly shed any light on your intentions, either. But at any rate, you've endorsed Mangoe's proposal, so thank you for that. Cgingold (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Above I wrote Should be "moved" and reduced to .... That is not a hint. 2. You wrote referring to me: what he had in mind when ... That question is not relevant at all, it is just poking for bad discussion. As said, your opening for some reason too is searching in the wrong place. And btw, you could have asked me. Why did you not? -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say, user:Cgingold is trolling. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:USS Liberty incident and remove references to other ships. Several articles relate to the USS Liberty incident, so that would make an appropriate category (articles linked by a shared defining charcateristic) ... whereas the current category is just categorisation by name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename into Category:USS Liberty incident is the best idea I read. In line with my first cmt "Good point" here, and Munroe and BrownHairedGirl have surpassed it. (I am the creator of thee category). -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articlise into a dab article (if necessary) then delete. I am not clear why some persons appear in the category, but presume that they were involved in the incidnet or derived on the ship, but that would be a performance by performer categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 2 June 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.
Remaining bridges-by-decade categories
- 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) 12:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1120s to Category:12th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1150s to Category:12th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1200s to Category:13th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1260s to Category:13th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1330s to Category:14th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1350s to Category:14th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1360s to Category:14th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1650s to Category:17th-century bridges
- Category:Bridges completed in the 1680s to Category:17th-century bridges
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. These are the only remaining categories from this bridges-by-decade discussion I closed. The only contents are bridges whose exact date of completion I can't determine. There's only one or two bridges per category, so I recommend an merge to the century category for each.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I deplore the removal of the by-decade categories for later periods, when the decades served as useful navigational containers for the by-year categs, as part of the wider scheme of by-decade categorisation. In this case, removing the by-decade categories will create the absurdity of Category:12th-century bridges containing a series of single-article by-year categs, rather than few and better-populated by-decade categories. Category:13th-century bridges is no better: seven 1-article by-year categories, and one 2-artcle categ, rather 5 by-decade categories. As Andy Dingley pointed out in the previous discussion, we should have a progressive granularity for this sort of category, and should probably dispense with both the the by-year and by-decade categs for this period ... whilst retaining the decades for later periods. Instead, it seems that all the centuries are being treated the same, without regard to either the extent of population or the precision of available dates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly merge, As someone who is actually interested in bridges I can't see the value in having per-decade lists for the periods given - the rate of progress in technology/architectural style is too slow for the small cats to have any useful distinction - they're are also small-cats. Oranjblud (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it might be more productive and helpful to categorise the larger century cats by place/material/style etc.Oranjblud (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as nom We should not be having "by year" categories for a comparatively remote period such as this. The articles should be directly in the century category. Category:Bridges by decade also needs to be removed: there are no more than four articles in it for any one century. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 2 June 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:Georgia city navigational boxes
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Disambiguation is needed between Georgia the state and Georgia the country. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- REname per nom. This is standard practice for all "Georgia" categories due to ambibuity. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 2 June 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:Free software licenses
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. 'Free software' and 'open source' are synonyms (see, for example, Alternative names for free software). It does make sense to distinguish licences that have been recognised by the Free Software Foundation as free software licences from the licences that have been recognised by the Open Source Initiative as open source licences: but this is already done with the FSF-approved and OSI-approved sub-categories under Category:Free and open-source software licenses. There's no sense in separating open source and free software licences: these are two different terms for the same concept. --Sanglorian (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per nom. we don't need these additional cats.--KarlB (talk) 07:34, 28 May 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:Open source software licenses
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. For the reasons given above under 'Free software licenses'. --Sanglorian (talk) 20:52, 27 May 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:History of the Ottoman Empire by country
- 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:History of the Ottoman Empire by province. The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country to Category:Ottoman Empire by geography
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The notion of categorizing parts of a previous empire with today's political geography, today's countries, makes no sense since literature mostly refers to geographic parts. FocalPoint (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I agree with nominator's rationale. (alt: Category:Ottoman Empire by geographical region?)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by province, since the Ottoam Empire had its own sub-divisions, we should use these in sub-categorizing by geography its history.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- REname per JLP. This is clearly the right solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 2 June 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:Civil aviation history of Australia
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:35, 27 May 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:Apostle Peter
- 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:Peter the Apostle. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename the article instead. Category:Saint Peter is a dab category, so will easily result in miscategorization, since we already see the need for a dab category. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Saint Peter is ambiguous per St. Peter (disambiguation). Oculi (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Saint Peter (apostle). Case of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where the cat needs dabbing, and this both more closely matches the article title while being dabbed in the way things are actually supposed to be dabbed. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. Previous "no consensus" discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Saint is an honourific title. And there is more than one Peter who have been named saints. I would instead support Peter the apostle, per the similarly named articles in Category:Biblical apostles. - jc37 08:09, 28 May 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.