Content deleted Content added
→Category:Guantanamo Bay prisoners: Closing debate; result was merge |
→Category:American captives in Bagram: Closing debate; result was rename |
||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
==== Category:American captives in Bagram ==== |
==== Category:American captives in Bagram ==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.'' |
|||
The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 16:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:American captives in Bagram]] to [[:Category:Bagram Theater Detention Facility detainees]] |
:'''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:American captives in Bagram]] to [[:Category:Bagram Theater Detention Facility detainees]] |
||
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' {{{3|'''Rename'''. Current name is ambiguous because it could be interpreted that the captives are Americans. Use full name of detention facility as at [[Bagram Theater Detention Facility]]; "Bagram" is ambiguous. Since the Bagram Theater Detention Facility is on a U.S. Air Force base, they are all being detained by the United States and I don't think it's necessary to state that again in the category name. [[User:Snocrates|Snocrates]] 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)}}} |
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' {{{3|'''Rename'''. Current name is ambiguous because it could be interpreted that the captives are Americans. Use full name of detention facility as at [[Bagram Theater Detention Facility]]; "Bagram" is ambiguous. Since the Bagram Theater Detention Facility is on a U.S. Air Force base, they are all being detained by the United States and I don't think it's necessary to state that again in the category name. [[User:Snocrates|Snocrates]] 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)}}} |
||
*'''Rename''' per nom; the wording seems to suggest that the Americans are the captives not captors here, surely an error. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 06:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Rename''' per nom; the wording seems to suggest that the Americans are the captives not captors here, surely an error. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] ([[User talk:Carlossuarez46|talk]]) 06:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div> |
|||
==== Category:Guantanamo Bay prisoners ==== |
==== Category:Guantanamo Bay prisoners ==== |
Revision as of 16:11, 26 December 2007
December 17
Category:Old Catholic bishops
Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy
Category:ISKCON
Category:AIC
Category:Files by User:Pvasiliadis from el.wikipedia
Category:Reformation
Category:Local Church
Category:Foursquare Gospel Members
- Propose renaming Category:Foursquare Gospel Members to Category:Members of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use full name of organization; parent is Category:International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Snocrates 22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unneeded religion category, not defining and not necessarily sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Latter Rain Movement
Category:Bible Students
Category:Left Behind
Category:Songs with apocalyptic references
Category:KT boundary
- Propose renaming Category:KT boundary to Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a subcategory of Category:Extinction events, category should be for the event, not the geological evidence of the event. Compare Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and K–T boundary. Snocrates 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the KT boundary is not equivalent to the extinction event. It might need recategorizing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's my point. The KT boundary is one of the geological evidences of the extinction event. The category has a parent category which classifies according to extinction events, and articles about the KT boundary could be included in a category about the extinction event. I considered creating Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and making Category:KT boundary a subcategory of it, but that seemed like overcategorization to me. Snocrates 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The K–T boundary article itself would not fit into the renamed category. The boundary between two geologic periods is not necessarily an extinction event, as I understand it. Currently, this category serves as repository for events occuring around the KT boundary in time. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree that the article would not fit. From the article Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event: "It is widely known as the K–T extinction event and is associated with a geological signature, usually a thin band dated to that time and found in various parts of the world, known as the K–T boundary." The KT boundary is clearly linked to the extinction event and would fit nicely in the category. Snocrates 06:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The K–T boundary article itself would not fit into the renamed category. The boundary between two geologic periods is not necessarily an extinction event, as I understand it. Currently, this category serves as repository for events occuring around the KT boundary in time. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's my point. The KT boundary is one of the geological evidences of the extinction event. The category has a parent category which classifies according to extinction events, and articles about the KT boundary could be included in a category about the extinction event. I considered creating Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and making Category:KT boundary a subcategory of it, but that seemed like overcategorization to me. Snocrates 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose actually "KT boundary" is the name most used in English for this. Some abbreviations are not expanded when they are the most understood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Stampedes
Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE
- Propose renaming Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Parent is Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Snocrates 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please wait a bit. We just had a huge discussion about merging the related articles Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/archive_4#List_of_terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE_.28merge.29, so it might make sense to rename it to "Attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam". — Sebastian 02:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deleting "terrorist" is probably a separate issue that can be addressed in a future CFD. This one will merely expand the abbreviation. Snocrates 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans to Category:Advertising slogans
- Merge Category:McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans to Category:Advertising slogans- Template:Lc1
- Nominator's rationale: Category populated with only one entry. Gilliam (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - "I'm deletin' it" could be the next tag line. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Lehi
Category:Battles of the Sudanese Mahdist revolt
Category:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp
- Propose renaming Category:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp to Category:Ruhleben prisoner of war camp
- Category:POW at Ruhleben to Category:Prisoners at Ruhleben prisoner of war camp
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Parent category is Category:Prisoner of war camps not Category:P.O.W. camps or Category:POW camps. Not sure if name of camp is a proper noun and should be capitalized; I've opted for not, but it probably could go the other way. Snocrates 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both - Overcategorization. No other WWI POW camps have categories, and no other WWI POWs are categorized by camp. The names are already listed in the main article. I don't see this as sufficiently noteworthy to justify categories. Cgingold (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both POWs shouldn't be categorized by camp, many no doubt had tenures at various way-point camps as well as the camp in which the majority of their detention occurred. For the camp itself, perhaps a conglomeration of WWI camps, but not each individually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as "P.O.W.". While the expansion of the name is sensible, there is no real consistency across the sub-categories right now (e.g. Category:Japanese POW and internment camps. etc.) As it stands it matches the name of the relevant article. Personally I don't have a particular problem with it not matching, but if we are going to tidy one up then all should be done, and that includes the main article as well. (There are 100s of other POW camp categories - hopefully we'll get some more WW1 camp articles added to WP in due course, the Ottoman ones in particular. However Ruleben really warrants its own category as it was most unusual, in that it held a large number of notable civilian internees.) Ephebi (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Escapees
- Propose renaming Category:Escapees to Category:Prison escapees or Category:To be determined by consensus
- Category:Fictional escapees to Category:Fictional prison escapees to Category:To be determined by consensus
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is a little vague. I realise the category includes people who have escaped from POW or penal colonies as well as prisons, but "prison escapees" seems to me to be a generic enough name. Main article is at Prison escape. Perhaps someone else might have a suggestion for an alternative. Snocrates 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Escaped captives" maybe? Although that might be taken to cover slaves. The POWs have a sub-category, so maybe it is clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the POWs are already covered; is there a meaningful difference between jail & prison for this? if not then the nom's "Prison escapees" can cover those; others who escape from other confinement (concentration or death camps? the Warsaw Ghetto?, others can be left at the highest level "Escapees" under which escaped slaves, and escaped kidnapped victims can be placed - maybe even draft evaders/deserters, defectors, and others who feel that they have escaped something. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:American captives in Bagram
Category:Guantanamo Bay prisoners
Category:The Elder Scrolls locations
Category:The Elder Scrolls races
Category:Animal articles without taxoboxes
- Propose renaming
- Category:Animal articles without taxoboxes to Category:Animal articles needing a taxobox
- Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing taxoboxes to Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing a taxobox
- Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes to Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. This CFD is a effectively reversing part of a previous CfD. A deletion review described many reasons why the change is inappropriate for taxoboxes. Articles listed in the above categories need taxoboxes, they aren't "without" them. Per the DR, the article on Fish is without a taxobox, but doesn't need one. Justin chat 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename all per nom & my comments at DR Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Animal taxonomic articles without taxoboxes, et al.(Changed my mind; see below.) We can avoid the conflict by making the article label about the articles which definitely want taxoboxes. Regardless, I'd keep the word "without" (and extend it to other maintenance categories, but that's a discussion for another day), and definitely keep the plural on "taxoboxes" ("articles" need "taxoboxes"; "an article" needs "a taxobox").--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why there's a conflict at all. Taxonomic articles need taxoboxes. Non-taxonomic articles don't. So the only articles in a category called "Animal articles needing a taxobox" are taxonomic articles. I'm assuming you want to see some level of conformity (don't we all), but conformity shouldn't take precedence over common sense. Justin chat 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone on Wikipedia should be defining needs. "Without" doesn't have that stigma. Just my opinion, though. (Actually, now that I think about it, why do these infoboxes have a special name of "taxoboxes" anyway? There aren't any "alboboxes" for albums or "Soxoboxes" for Red Sox articles. Wouldn't this be better as Category:Animal articles without infoboxes? Just a thought.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because {{taxobox}} is the name of the template, and it is specifically for placement on pages about a formally-recognized biological taxon; it is also a uniform name and template across wikipedias in multiple languages. When baseball teams begin using Latin names regulated internationally by a Code of Nomenclature, and have a uniform infobox across multiple wikipedia, they too might start using a special box. For now, they don't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- On a side note, I propose we rename Red Sox infoboxes to "Soxoboxes" immediately! Sheep81 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mike, that's the wrong question. The correct question is: Why aren't all infoboxes called "taxobox" any more? "Taxobox" is the original term; see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Archive 1#Suggestions for renaming page: infobox, factbox, statbox. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone on Wikipedia should be defining needs. "Without" doesn't have that stigma. Just my opinion, though. (Actually, now that I think about it, why do these infoboxes have a special name of "taxoboxes" anyway? There aren't any "alboboxes" for albums or "Soxoboxes" for Red Sox articles. Wouldn't this be better as Category:Animal articles without infoboxes? Just a thought.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why there's a conflict at all. Taxonomic articles need taxoboxes. Non-taxonomic articles don't. So the only articles in a category called "Animal articles needing a taxobox" are taxonomic articles. I'm assuming you want to see some level of conformity (don't we all), but conformity shouldn't take precedence over common sense. Justin chat 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename all - per nom to form Category:xxxx articles needing a taxobox or Category:xxxx articles needing a infobox. these should never have changed; the debate was inconclusive with only "one" voting/argueing for the naming that was eventually used - very, very poor. In fact the level of editor's voting was so low it is extraordinary that this just went through, even though I voted for the rename as originally proposed. There are many other categories needing change back too. Being without a box doen't mean it needs one and having one doesn't mean it doesn't need one. As I said; very, very poor. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename all to Category:Foo articles without infoboxes per reasoning by Mike. --Kbdank71 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename all to Category:Foo articles without infoboxes. Yeah, after seeing Kbdank endorse this line of reasoning, I'm going to switch to that. I just don't buy the need to call these things anything but infoboxes, at least in the category names.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this should be posted at the various WikiProjects so the people actually editing these articles can have input. As long as no one considers that canvassing, I'd be happy to do it. However, if I do that, it's unquestionable Mike's suggestion will be roundly defeated. There is a reason the category has a special name. They are infoboxes, but they are special infoboxes. Personally, I think this is a wholly inappropriate place to be suggesting we change the name of something with existing guidelines. For those that have responded to this, would any of you take issue if I let the folks at WP:ANIMAL and WP:PLANTS know of this CfD's existance? Justin chat 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Special how? Because they deal with taxonomy? One could make the same argument that any infobox is special, and like Mike says above, we don't call them "Soxoboxes". I'm pretty sure nobody working on these articles would look at Category:Foo articles without infoboxes and say, "Really? Ok then, let's add a Soxobox right here" in a fit of confusion. I might be persuaded to go for something like Category:Foo articles without taxonomic infoboxes if you think people would be confused, but like I said, I don't think that's really necessary. --Kbdank71 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Special, because by the consensus of the Wikipedia community (for some years now) they are required for articles on specific taxonomic clades. Is there a standing guideline or consensus that specific Redsox articles require a very specific infobox? The argument here seems to be "they aren't special so let's make them ambiguous". That simply doesn't make any sense. Category:Animal articles without infoboxes is entirely ambiguous. If we do the rename as you suggest, the article Fish fully qualifies for that category. It's an animal article without a infobox. Of course, it's an animal article that doesn't need an infobox, but by pushing for ambiguity, you are offering up the perfect solution to create more over categorization. Justin chat 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's just common sense. Of course Fish doesn't need a infobox, taxonomic or otherwise. These categories are not for readers of the encyclopedia, they're for the editors. I like to think our editors have the smarts so that we don't have to hold their hands and spell out everything for them. And if, by chance, you get someone adds Fish to the wrong category, a gentle note on their talk page should suffice, as it would if they added it to any category that isn't appropriate. As for being "special", I still don't see how something being required means it has to have its own name. --Kbdank71 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I can't seem to find the policy which requires we "prove" that a specific infobox can or can't have it's own name. I've presented several arguments for why "need" is more appropriate, and why "without infoboxes" is too ambiguous. Thus far, the responses I've gotten are I don't like it. You both are going to have to do better than that if you expect a change in a widely accepted practice. Justin chat 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Likewise, I think it's just common sense that these categories didn't need to be renamed in the first place. I didn't see anything wrong with the category titles before the initial move. --Rkitko (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's just common sense. Of course Fish doesn't need a infobox, taxonomic or otherwise. These categories are not for readers of the encyclopedia, they're for the editors. I like to think our editors have the smarts so that we don't have to hold their hands and spell out everything for them. And if, by chance, you get someone adds Fish to the wrong category, a gentle note on their talk page should suffice, as it would if they added it to any category that isn't appropriate. As for being "special", I still don't see how something being required means it has to have its own name. --Kbdank71 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Special, because by the consensus of the Wikipedia community (for some years now) they are required for articles on specific taxonomic clades. Is there a standing guideline or consensus that specific Redsox articles require a very specific infobox? The argument here seems to be "they aren't special so let's make them ambiguous". That simply doesn't make any sense. Category:Animal articles without infoboxes is entirely ambiguous. If we do the rename as you suggest, the article Fish fully qualifies for that category. It's an animal article without a infobox. Of course, it's an animal article that doesn't need an infobox, but by pushing for ambiguity, you are offering up the perfect solution to create more over categorization. Justin chat 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps this should be posted at the various WikiProjects so the people actually editing these articles can have input. As long as no one considers that canvassing, I'd be happy to do it. However, if I do that, it's unquestionable Mike's suggestion will be roundly defeated. There is a reason the category has a special name. They are infoboxes, but they are special infoboxes. Personally, I think this is a wholly inappropriate place to be suggesting we change the name of something with existing guidelines. For those that have responded to this, would any of you take issue if I let the folks at WP:ANIMAL and WP:PLANTS know of this CfD's existance? Justin chat 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and per my comments earlier in the DR. --Rkitko (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom - I have made most of these comments elsewhere, but they don't seem to have been read or addressed by the current round of discussion.
- The TOL projects have all agreed that taxa should have taxoboxes to uniformly coordinate information about scientific names, classification, and scientific synonyms. Names of taxa are regulated and made uniform internationally by the various Codes of Nomenclature. This information helps biologists keep track of which organism is which, and is consistent worldwide and between languages. The taxobox presents this information, and is therefore useful even if the reader does not speak English. Even the coding was created to be consistent between wikipedias, so that sharing of taxobox information was the same across different languages, and consistent with Wikispecies.
- The "needs taxobox" categories were created by the TOL projects to keep track of those articles which needed to have the taxobox added. However, the taxoboxes were recently renamed out of process, and the new "without" name is wholly inappropriate for TOL articles. Most articles on a species or larger taxonomic group of organisms have a taxobox, but there are many, many organism articles that have no taxobox and shouldn't, in part because there are many organism articles that aren't taxa. For example, the Fish article has no taxobox, but it should not have a Taxobox because it is not a taxon. It could conceivably end up with an infobox from some other project, but it should not have a taxobox. The same is true of Bryophyte, Algae, Marine mammal, and countless other organism articles. These pages are not taxa, and so do not have a Taxobox as a result of not being taxa. Further, there are many articles within the scope of the TOL projects that are not about organisms at all, such as Seed, Systematics, and Arthur Cronquist. These articles should also not receieve taxoboxes, despite being "Plants" articles, and this is uniformly agreed.
- However, there is also a desire on the part of all the various TOL groups to include taxoboxes on articles that are about taxa (formally recognized groups), as well as infoboxes on articles about important strains and cultivars. When these pages lack such a box, it is important that they receive one (for reasons as outlined above), and the categories (as noted above) were created for just this purpose.
- Unfortunately, with the newly revised category names (e.g. Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes), the category name is nonsensical and useless to the project using it. There are many, many articles within the scope of WP:PLANTS that have no taxobox and never will. The plant physiology article will not (and should not) have a taxobox; it is a discipline, not a taxon. Likewise, the Leaf article should not have a taxobox, and neither should Algae, Bryophyte, Fish, etc. For all the TOL Wikiprojects, there is a clearly defined, and very important, distinction between articles that should have taxoboxes and articles that should not have taxoboxes. Whether an article is simply without such a taxobox is irrelevant and useless information. What is important is locating the articles that need such a box. Keeping this distinction in the name is necessary. The TOL projects together potentially encompass more than a million articles. The categories are there to be used by the TOL projects, and so the category names should be clear and precise, reducing the potential for confusion about what is to be included. They should not simply be named so as to satisfy some abstract desire for uniformity. These categories serve a practical function, and the name should reflect that function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. "needing" is the operative word here --Melburnian (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom - I think the 'needing' bit is rather essential to the intended meaning DJLayton4 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nom - I agree with the previous two posts.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment whatever they are renamed to, they should be clear that they only belong on talk pages as an internal reference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Now all are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rename per nomination - Distinction should be drawn between "without" and "needing". Also, the categories should specifically refer to taxoboxes, since that is what the articles in question need. There are other infoboxes besides taxoboxes that could conceivably be put on many ToL articles, but that's not what the category is referring to. Sheep81 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)