Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 28 May 2006

May 27

Landforms by country

Comments regarding a proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (categories) that would make "in country" the naming convention for Landform by country categories would be very appreciated prior to a cfru. Kurieeto 22:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics anti-heroes

After the deletion of the Category:Anti-heroes, somebody created this Marvel Comics specific subcat. All the same reasons apply for it's deletion. CovenantD 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep DC Comics can have one, but Marvel can't?T-1000 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Concept automobiles to Category:Concept vehicles

While the former name might be more accurate, the latter category is used much more extensively (I support merging to either one, as long as the automobiles all end up in the same category). Interiot 20:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Catholic High Schools

Merge into Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools. -- ProveIt 20:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Songs with memorable guitar riffs

This is the second time this category has appeared. No criteria for inclusion other than POV. Anger22 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• delete. as per reason listed above. Anger22 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete too subjective. Dismas| 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete at warp speed... --Cat out 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and block recreation. Osomec 00:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per all above. David Kernow 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Labor organizers to Category:Trade unionists

Merge Different terminology for the same thing. Mais oui! 18:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as requested. Twittenham 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Osomec 00:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Soap hunks

Subjective criterion based on perceived attractiveness. Tim! 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Too subjective. Twittenham 19:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Twittenham. — Nathan 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dismas| 21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete silliness Antares33712 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't just stand there... Speedy delete...--Cat out 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. David Kernow 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV. — TKD::Talk 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Paradoxes of the Human Condition

Ill-defined category w/ only one article, Human condition, over its 6 months of existence. Moreover that article does not even have a clear focus on paradoxical issues, unlike numerous other articles in Category:Paradoxes and its subcategories. In conclusion, usefulness of category is highly suspect and has not been demonstrated.

If decision ends up being to keep, please also consider renaming (at a minimum, fix the capitalization so it's "Paradoxes of the human condition"). 24.16.39.33 15:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks as misplaced quote from some absurd comedy. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Humans had a condition? --Cat out 23:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an encyclopedic category, methinks. David Kernow 02:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:UK Water companies to Category:Water companies of the United Kingdom

Reason: Does not follow the correct form. Nathcer 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

• Rename as above. Nathcer 14:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Water companies in the United Kingdom. Of implies UK owns the companies... --Cat out 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. "Of" is used for companies. The comment about ownership, which the user has made in a different context below, is just wrong. Osomec 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom to Category:Water companies of the United Kingdom. I recongise Cat's thinking, but believe "of" can imply association as well as or instead of ownership. Regards, David Kernow 02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Flora of Shropshire to Category:Geography of Shropshire

None of the articles are about "flora of shropshire" in the sense of native plants, they are about forests and suchlike. There is no need for such categories at English country level, and other counties don't have them. The articles are also in the "forests and woodlands" and "national nature reserves" categories as appropriate. Athenaeum 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

• Merge as above. Athenaeum 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as requested. It is rather unlikely that Shropshire has any unique flora. Twittenham 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 02:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cities destroyed during World War II and subcategories

This is a totally inappropriate use of the category system. "Destroyed" is perhaps not literally true in a single case, it is prone to POV pushing, and not a primary characteristic of the cities. The category system deals in black and white and should not touch issues which are all shades of grey. None of the articles relate primarily to this topic, but are rather general city articles which have perfectly good categories already. We really don't want to see cities categorised in umpteen ways, as they are currently reasonably free of the dreadful category clutter that afflicts biographical articles. The category system is not a substitute for a search engine or for subject articles.

• category:Cities destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in France destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in Germany destroyed during World War II (also nominated separately below)
• Category:Cities in Italy destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in Japan destroyed during World War II
• Category:Cities in the Soviet Union destroyed during World War II

Delete all Bhoeble 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Athenaeum 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. - Gilgamesh 13:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - "We really don't want to see cities categorised in umpteen ways, as they are currently reasonably free of the dreadful category clutter that afflicts biographical articles." Are you assuming bad faith on the part of how biographical and other articles are categorized? Who says we all don't want all those informative categories? Who says it's a bad thing? This is an issue of much wider debate than this—I don't think it's something we need be debating here, but only the appropriateness of a single category topic (rather than all of them). - Gilgamesh 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The accusation that I am assuming bad faith is completely without foundation. I am just saying that there is a lack of restraint which is harmful as it reduces clarity. I haven't made allegations that you have breached policy, and I don't see why you should feel free to make such allegations against me. I have just suggested that you have made a misjudgement in creating these categories, as is my right, which is why this page exists. Bhoeble 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, then if you think I merely misjudged, then I misjudged you as well. I'm sorry. - Gilgamesh 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • PS. You should really have disclosed that you are an interested party as you created these categories. Bhoeble 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? I don't understand "interested party" in this context. - Gilgamesh 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Please delete them all. This characterization taints the categories of these cities. In many cases, the cities weren't *destroyed*. They offer no insight, and this labeling is a remnant of Allied WWII propaganda. - GilliamJF 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean Axis propaganda as well? Bhoeble 15:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. To something along the lines of Cities devastated during World War II. Intangible 14:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Listify or at least rename to "devastated" format (few could have been said to be utterly destroyed). We could have "cities devastated by earthquakes", "cities devastated during World War I", "cities devastated by mutant reptiles" etc so it's not specifically a WWII thing. However, "devastation" is very much a matter of degree so a list would be substantially better than a category. TheGrappler 19:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If not deleted change to "devasted", which is no less subjective, but slightly less emotive. Sumahoy 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The listed cities were badly damaged, but they survived. The destroyed cities (if any) should be listed in Category:Ghost towns, or in a separate subcategory. MapLover 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useles cat as it is actualy highly subjective. Most of europe was destroyed... --Cat out 23:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too crude, subjective and selective. Osomec 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lakes and Rivers of Montenegro

Replace the category with two categories: one for lakes and one for rivers. bogdan 13:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I will create the two subcategories. Sumahoy 21:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Break category into two sub categories. One for the lakes and another for the rivers. --Cat out 23:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Disbarred attorneys to Category:Disbarred American lawyers

This is an American category. "Lawyers" would fit into the scheme of things better. Bhoeble 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

• Rename as above. Bhoeble 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rivers of England to Category:Rivers in England

Proposal withdrawn pending larger scoped nomination. Kurieeto 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

44 of the 45 river by region sub-categories of Category:Rivers of England use the "in country" wording. This may reflect local usages, and is also more apt than "of" because rivers cross so many borders, and have existed prior to the borders even being formed as human concepts. Lastly, "rivers in England" is more commonly used in the outside world than "rivers of England" as per a Google comparison ("rivers in england -wikipedia", 23,400 hits, "rivers of england -wikipedia", 9,950 hits). Kurieeto 13:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Misplaced Pages uses "of" for natural features. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does so changing this one in breach of that is a no-no. Sumahoy 21:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sub-country entities don't have to follow the by country naming conventions where appropriate, and I took Category:Rivers of the United Kingdom to be the country-level parent for this subject, leaving this cat open for potential change given its constituents. But your point is valid, so I'll withdraw the nomination pending a further, larger scoped proposal. Kurieeto 21:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

rename per nom of implies ownership. United Kingdom "owns" the river while it happens to flow in England. --Cat out 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose "Of" does not necessarily or usually imply ownership. Osomec 00:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia

Empty, redundant to Category:Terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Conscious 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

• delete. I dont like "terrorism" on article or category titles used like this.--Cat out 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as empty/ied. David Kernow 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Walter Burley Griffin Designed Cities to Category:Cities designed by Walter Burley Griffin

Grammar and capitalization. Conscious 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

• Alternative rename Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin to match the parent Category:Planned cities. Bhoeble 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• support nom. --Cat out 23:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin. "Designed" implies far more - in terms of designing buildings - than was actually the case. Osomec 00:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Cities planned by Walter Burley Griffin per Bhoeble and above. David Kernow 02:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Run and guns to Category:Run and gun computer games

More descriptive title. -- Longhair 10:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename, but to something else if "run and gun" a neologism. (Rhetorical: Why not "gun and run"...?)  Regards, David Kernow 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not nominate its parent category Category:Shoot 'em ups as well? --JeffW 05:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian railway accidents to Category:Railway accidents in Australia

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:British railway accidents to Category:Railway accidents in the United Kingdom

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Indian Aviation incidents to Category:Aviation incidents in India

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete? only 5 articles. is a category really necesary. Besides one of he incidents happened in JAPAN. I do not think it is a good idea to sort Aviation incidents by country. How about sorting by company. Location is ambigious as the planes often end up crashing into internatinal waters. --Cat out 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pakistan Aviation Incidents to Category:Aviation incidents in Pakistan

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete? Only 2 articles. Is a category really necesary? --Cat out 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Irish famines to Category:Famines in Ireland

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only 4 articles (its not like famines happen in ireland every day). A disambiguation page is more than adequate.... --Cat out 23:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian tornadoes to Category:Tornadoes in Australia

Change to correct naming convention. Carcharoth 10:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename -- Longhair 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename... shouldnt it be at rather than in? Category:Tornadoes at Australia may be more aproporate... --Cat out 23:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Germany destroyed during World War II

Ehnocentric category. I lived in Germany for a couple years and can testify that there is much history in every one of these so-called "destroyed" cities. Although most of Germany's major cities was damaged, they were fixed after the war. This category is unuseful and unencyclopedic. - GilliamJF 07:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Modify - this is a useful subcategory of Category:Cities_destroyed_during_World_War_II. I think your issue is rather with the precise naming and use of the word "destroyed". Though looking more closely, the category structure is really tangled here - all the articles in Category:Hamburg are under this "Cities destroyed during World War II" category, which is ridiculous. I think the emphasis should rather be on this being a historical category, incorporating the bombing/firestorm articles found elsewhere, for example, Category:World War II strategic bombing and the ones listed at Firebombing. In other words, the cities themselves should not be listed in this category, but rather the articles about the destruction/firebombing. The others should be added to a list of cities destroyed in WWII, which can be put in the relevant category. Carcharoth 11:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC) - I've asked User:Gilgamesh, who created parts of this category structure, to comment. Carcharoth 11:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sure, let's find concensus. The definition of destruction should be clarified. I would say that a city is effectively destroyed when at least half of it is totally in ruins, or when the entire heart of the city (such as in the case of Coventry) is so. Destroyed cities can be rebuilt, but it should be clear that the built-up infrastructure is, for all intents and purposes, defaulted and must be rebuilt from the ground up. I didn't consider it necessary for a "destroyed city" to never have been rebuilt. - Gilgamesh 11:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I elaborated on existing categories by organizing them into neat and orderly subcategories. I never considered this an ethnocentric distinction—I simply listed cities that were de jure (internationally recognized) part of Germany during the war. Germany's borders changed after the war. I am well aware that many cities destroyed in Germany during the war had significant non-ethnic-German populations. That was not the factor here. Considering de jure sovereignty of the time seemed the most NPOV (rather than within the scope of ethnicity or modern political entities). - Gilgamesh 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Patently not NPOV. None of these cities were destroyed. This looks like a manifestation of the recent rise of the "we were victims of World War II" attitude in Germany. Bhoeble 13:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now done a group nomination of the related categories. Bhoeble 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that I did not make the original category—I merely sorted and subcategorized what was already there. Also note that I'm not from Germany and have no connection with the politics of national victimhood. - Gilgamesh 14:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, task for detailed list-like article. Cat is not able to provide the context information and structuring. Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek Sumahoy 21:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Misplaced Pages:Category. Categories are navigation aids. It is very unlikely for someone to navigate cities using this category. An article on the other hand would be usefull in explaining what percentage of cities were destroyed etc... --Cat out 23:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A category is too crude for this purpose. Osomec 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

Extremely vague. No parameters for what is meant by "region" or "inhabited." For example, would a family living in a suburb of Seattle, WA qualify the Pacific Northwest as a Kurdish inhabited region? See this CfD for a similar category. CovenantD 06:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The category is not specific.--Hattusili 14:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Category: Hispanic inhabited regions--Cretanforever
• Delete as per Hispanic ... This is topic for and article, not cat. Pavel Vozenilek 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - see reasons mentioned at previous CfD. —Khoikhoi 01:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Is the intention of this category to group Category:Regions with Kurdish majorities...?  David Kernow 02:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps that could be better. The problem is, the Turkish Census isn't based off of ethnicity, so there aren't offical statistics. We just have news reports here and there. —Khoikhoi 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I have explained the reasons last time this category was nominated for deletion. --Hectorian 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  after the recent attempt to delete Turkish Kurdistan, another nomination about an article related to the Kurds is also nominated... Am i paranoid that i see political motivations behind this action? --Hectorian 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) hardly explains anything...

• speedy keep as the previous CFD has been conducted so recently. --Irpen 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  And a good number of keep votes were because I nominated it, this time I havent even nominated it.

• Delete Extremely vague category. What qualifies? --Cat out 06:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bird topography

Has no parent article, contains only three articles, all three are stubs, and two are proposed to be merged into an article not in the category. mastodon 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose deletion I agree that there is a problem here, but disagree that the solution is deletion of the category; instead it would be better, IMO, to address the problems constructively i.e. create a parent article, expand stubs, add other relevant articles. SP-KP 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

neutral I can see posible good uses for this kind of category. After all birds are a vast topic. --Cat out 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Twist ending to Category:Films with a twist ending

• Rename "Twist ending" is simply ambigous. "Films with a twist ending" is much more precise if it's to be kept at all. Dismas| 02:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename I agree. Renaming this entry will bring the category into focus. Right now, this particular category applies to too many fields so this is a necessary change. Schwenkstar| 27 May 2006

• Delete - isn't this a sort of spoiler? And besides, is it really necessary to categorize films by type of ending, wouldn't a list be enough? Ajshm 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This has been deleted before I think. Bhoeble 13:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this list is necessary. The "twist ending" is a merely a plot device and it would be interesting to see what films utilize this device. Also, I don't see it being any different than other categories here on Misplaced Pages. For example, Spirited Away has the category "Shapeshifting in fiction," Memento has the category "Fictional amnesiacs," and Angel Heart has "Films featuring the Devil." All these categories are citing elements within the film's narrative, which I see as being no different than citing the element of the "twist ending" within the film's narrative. If anything, the "twist ending" category is even more necessary than these other categories since it is citing a literary device; the others are citing either only a singular character (devil) or a singular event (shapeshifting). Schwenkstar| 27 May 2006
• Rename to Category:Films with a surprise ending; clearer description. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dump category giving no clue to a reader. This is task for detailed list with internal structure and some context. Pavel Vozenilek 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Antares33712 22:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Do cliffhangers qualify? This is a very bad case of spoiling the show. Details regarding to the ending should not be even mentioned to minimise spoilage... --Cat out 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Hang on a minute lads - I've got a great idea.... (Well, it's an idea already mentioned but still) Delete and listify - that way a {{spoiler}} can be put at the top, too. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Books about the far right

• Rename "Right-wing books" or "Far-right books" SirIsaacBrock 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as Category:Far-right books only if the cat includes both books about the far right and books by far-right authors. Is there a "far-left" category anywhere? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If necessary create a distinct category for Category:Far-right books that are actually written from a far-right point of view (though we'd have to be careful how that is defined). "About" is far clearer and there is a distinction to be drawn between books about and books by a subject (I know this is pushing the analogy, but we wouldn't keep "books about Hardy" and "books by Hardy" in the same category!). I suggest Her Pegship's vote should effectively be counted as a "keep"? TheGrappler 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, do keep. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename title rants unnecesarily. Category:Far-right books is more approporate. --Cat out 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)