| Revision as of 14:42, 26 March 2012 editPeterkingiron (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,716 edits →Category:Three-Cornered Conflicts← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:06, 26 March 2012 edit undoRich Farmbrough (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors1,725,267 edits →Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categoriesNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| :'''Nominator's rationale:''' One of the members is not in any red-linked categories. However, all are in at least one blue-linked category. ] (]) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | :'''Nominator's rationale:''' One of the members is not in any red-linked categories. However, all are in at least one blue-linked category. ] (]) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Not something that should be tracked in this way. If a page is in a red linked category, that is an error which should be resolved by creating the category or editing the page. Unless this category was automatically updated (which it is not), it won't help with that problem. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Not something that should be tracked in this way. If a page is in a red linked category, that is an error which should be resolved by creating the category or editing the page. Unless this category was automatically updated (which it is not), it won't help with that problem. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| **Logic error. These pages were in a red linked category. The category was created. That has resolved the superficial problem. Now someone should resolve the problem of the red-linked categories. Incidentally it is facile to suggest that this can be done trivially, ideally it requires someone with template experience and knowledge of the Wikipedian's category tree. ''] ]'', <small>15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| *'''Delete'''. User categories exist to assist collaboration, and I can't see how this trivial categ is of any use in collaboration. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. User categories exist to assist collaboration, and I can't see how this trivial categ is of any use in collaboration. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' -- I cannot see what the point of this category is. ] (]) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' -- I cannot see what the point of this category is. ] (]) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep or replace with soemthing better''' I might suggest that those adding the category to user pages, perhaps forlornly, thought that some ''collaborative'' effort might be made to resolve the RLCs. (Maybe someone would like to ask them? Of course if CBM would like to use his vaunted skills to produce a report and other contributors would like to work on resolving the issues, then that would be cool. But to simply recommend deleting one solution without putting something better in it's place is the height of folly. ''] ]'', <small>15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ==== Categories:Sport at Scottish and Welsh universities ==== | ==== Categories:Sport at Scottish and Welsh universities ==== | ||
Revision as of 15:06, 26 March 2012
| < March 25 | March 27 > |
|---|
March 26
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Tombs and cemeteries in Vietnam
- Propose renaming Category:Tombs and cemeteries in Vietnam to Category:Tombs in Vietnam; to contain articles on tombs only.
- Propose deleting Category:Burial monuments and structures in Vietnam (perhaps)
- Nominator's rationale: The first category is not part of a category tree of Tombs and cemeteries, and (like Category:Tombs in Greece) the rename would be part of the category Category:Burial monuments and structures. This category does not have “by country” subcategories though. Another possibility would be to absorb/upmerge the existing (few) “Tombs by country” categories into “Burial monuments and structures by country” categories, like the existing Category:Burial monuments and structures in Vietnam. This would have the advantage that the country category could be used for other types of burial structures within each country ie Ossuaries, Catacombs used for burials and even Mausoleums. Hugo999 (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in red-linked categories to Category:Wikipedians in blue-linked categories
- Nominator's rationale: One of the members is not in any red-linked categories. However, all are in at least one blue-linked category. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Not something that should be tracked in this way. If a page is in a red linked category, that is an error which should be resolved by creating the category or editing the page. Unless this category was automatically updated (which it is not), it won't help with that problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Logic error. These pages were in a red linked category. The category was created. That has resolved the superficial problem. Now someone should resolve the problem of the red-linked categories. Incidentally it is facile to suggest that this can be done trivially, ideally it requires someone with template experience and knowledge of the Wikipedian's category tree. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
- Logic error. These pages were in a red linked category. The category was created. That has resolved the superficial problem. Now someone should resolve the problem of the red-linked categories. Incidentally it is facile to suggest that this can be done trivially, ideally it requires someone with template experience and knowledge of the Wikipedian's category tree. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
- Delete. User categories exist to assist collaboration, and I can't see how this trivial categ is of any use in collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete -- I cannot see what the point of this category is. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep or replace with soemthing better I might suggest that those adding the category to user pages, perhaps forlornly, thought that some collaborative effort might be made to resolve the RLCs. (Maybe someone would like to ask them? Of course if CBM would like to use his vaunted skills to produce a report and other contributors would like to work on resolving the issues, then that would be cool. But to simply recommend deleting one solution without putting something better in it's place is the height of folly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Categories:Sport at Scottish and Welsh universities
- Propose renaming Category:Sport at Welsh universities to Category:Student sport in Wales
- Propose upmerging Category:Sport at Scottish universities to Category:Student sport in Scotland
- Nominator's rationale: The existing names do not suit the overall category Category:Student sport in the United Kingdom Hugo999 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge and rename per nom, to match parent Category:Student sport in the United Kingdom. Note that the grandparent Category:Student sport by country needs a little cleanup: most of the national categories take the form "Student sport in Foo", but there are a few exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Sex discrimination
- Category:Sex discrimination - Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Covered by Category:Sexism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Sex discrimination is one form of sexism, and should be a subcat of Category:Sexism.
The nominator also omits to propose an action wrt to nominated category. If it is to be removed, it should be merged to Category:Discrimination and Category:Sexism rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Three-Cornered Conflicts
- Propose deleting Category:Three-Cornered Conflicts (or renaming to Category:Three-cornered conflicts?)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete (or rename?). This category is defined as wars that had three parties all fighting each other. I'm not sure if this is a neologism or if it is an appropriate way to categorize wars. If kept, perhaps there would be a better name? If kept under the current name, the capitalization should at least be fixed. Good Ol’factory 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Tentative delete. I search on Google Scholar for "Three-Cornered Conflict" and "Three-Cornered Conflicts", and while the singular form does get 79 hits, very few of them relate to wars. I would not rule out the possibility that there may be some other term which is used in the literature for this type of war, but I don't know whether it exists. In the absence of any other information, this category looks like original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- WikiProject Military history has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a military history nerd, and I've never seen this term used. It's also not a very useful classification of these wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- This seems to be a phenomenon that arises in internal conflicts, where two rival insurgencies are fighting the government and often each other too. In Algeria, OAS and FLN were both fighting each other and the French government. In Colombia, FARC and ELN areboth fighting the government. In Northern Irleand, the republicans were fighting the British military and the police and the protestant paramilitaries. The police were trying to control the ptotestant paramilitaries, but I am not sure they were fighting the authorities. In Yugoslavia, the Muslims, the Croats and the Serbs were all fighting each other, though for the most part it was the Serbs against the rest. All these fit the category description, so I see no objection to the existence of the category. Perhaps some one can suggest a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)