Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

February 19[edit]

Category:Computers and environmental issues[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Computers and environmental issues to Category:Computers and the environment

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These look like duplicates. There's no distinct purpose to subcategory. Pnm (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Nominator is exactly right, no reason to have two of essentially the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not just upmerge both to the more inclusive Category:Electronic waste or one of the subcategories there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On a similar note, there are some problems with unnecessary repeat info and content forking at Computers and the environment, Electronics and the environment, and Electronic waste--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Electronic waste is a big environmental issue for computers, but power consumption of computers (especially data centers) is another, and most of the articles are about power. It seems worth keeping separate from Category:Electronics and the environment – their contents don't overlap. I suppose Category:Computer recycling could be merged into Category:Electronic waste. --Pnm (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (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:Game show announcers[edit]

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 and purge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Game show announcers to Category:Radio and television announcers

Nominator's rationale: Seems a bit of an overcategorization. Almost none of these people are exclusive to game shows, so there's an ungodly amount of overlap here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but narrow scope to those notable as game show announcers. --Pnm (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2011 (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:Albums recorded in Los Angeles, California[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is not a defining characteristic and it's definitely not a place where a reader would try to look for his favourite album. I also doubt the likelihood of correct categorization: of the current articles in the cat, two have no info on recording location and one explicitly gives a different location. Pichpich (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed, as the nom says. Occuli (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2011 (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:802.11n devices[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Categorizing devices according to the protocols they support is a category clutter nightmare given the vast array of such protocols. For the same reason (I think), there's no category for Bluetooth devices or 3G phones. Pichpich (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Even its parent Category:Wi-Fi devices seems to go too far. --Pnm (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2011 (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:End-to-end security[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a dictionary-like category. I'm not sure of its intended purpose. Right now it contains two articles. The phrase is a section heading in WS-Security but the exact meaning is unclear in that context. In the context of Pretty Good Privacy, who knows. There's Category:Secure communication which covers the general idea of "end-to-end" security. Pnm (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the question of deletion, I think the relevant concept is that of end-to-end encryption. The definition is elastic though and I don't think it applies to PGP. Pichpich (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a useful entry. It is a pity there are only two links. I surfed into this page hoping there would be more. I think PGP "is" a relevant link; It would have been even better to link to pages where PGP is the underlying technology but the use is specifically end-to-end. A table listing all existing methods/tools may also be good to link from here.--85.164.137.173 (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2011 (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.

People from Westland, Netherlands[edit]

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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Westland, Netherlands to Category:People from Westland, South Holland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Completing a partial attempt at a rename by an anonymous user. Each "People from (Netherlands city)" category is inside a province subcategory like Category:People from South Holland.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support since it matches the name of the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2011 (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:Sheep wool[edit]

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: do not rename. Category:Wool can be created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sheep wool to Category:Wool

Nominator's rationale: Having "sheep" in the title is unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not specifying favor towards one or the other, but if this change is made articles such as cashmere and angora wool would certainly have to be included, so the term sheep is not totally unnecessary. There's still a convincing argument to be made, however, that the category shouldn't apply to only sheep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with suggestion. As Yaksar points out, "wool" does not automatically equate to sheep's wool. However, a parent category for Category:Wool could easily be made, keeping the current category as a subcategory of it. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note If this was created, it would be important that the issues currently in the Sheep Wool Category that don't specifically apply to sheep are removed though. There's no need to have them under both wool and sheep wool. Maybe we should both change the name of the current category but also expand the scope?--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that pretty much goes without saying. A lot of the articles deal with wool in general, but there are quite a few in there which specifically deal with sheep's wool (sheep's wool, rather than sheep wool, is the normal term, i would have thought - it's certainly more often heard in this ovine-dominated part of the planet). Grutness...wha? 03:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominated wool does not equate to sheep's wool. There's Guanaco wool, Llama wool, etc. As for expanding the coverage to cover all wools no opinion. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Grutness as wool is not automatically associated with sheep wool and has been linked to dog hair and a heap of other hairs etc. which adds to the confusion. Cgoodwin (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Create Category:Wool on top. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2011 (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.

People from Willemstad, Netherlands Antilles[edit]

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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Willemstad, Netherlands Antilles to Category:People from Willemstad, Curaçao

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Completing a nomination started by an anonymous user. Seems right to me, as we have Category:People from Curaçao.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support change, especially given that "Netherland Antilles" no longer exists per se. Grutness...wha? 22:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this can probably be SNOW moved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:34, 28 February 2011 (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:Rail lines in Utah[edit]

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 US categories all place these kinds of articles under Rail infrastructure categories. If change is desired there, a more global nomination is needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rail lines in Utah

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All entries were re-categorized under Category:Rail infrastructure in Utah per other similar state categories. Plasma east (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-populate. Other countries have separate categs for railway lines (see Category:Railway lines by country), as a sub-cat of the infrastructure category, and this scheme should be extended to the USA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Lines" is not being used consistently here. In other countries, it is appears to be railroad companies, which is why Category:Railway companies of the United States is under Category:Railway lines by country. In contrast, "lines" in the US seem to be used for local spans of track. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To try to invite additional participation, I have notified WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Utah. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:31, 19 February 2011 (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:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has already been listified, can be deleted in line with all of these [1]. If it stays though, it should be renamed in a style such as [Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was discussed individually here with a "no consensus" result. I am still of the opinion that this particular award is notable but not defining for a film, so I am inclined to say delete, though I'm sensitive to the fact that this was discussed just two months ago. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining, reiterating my view from previous discussion linked by nominator. Hekerui (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (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:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has already been listified, can be deleted in line with all of these [[2]]. Unlike worst picture, being linked by being an awful sequel or remake to win an award is not particularly relevant or significant, and for much of these films is certainly not a defining characteristic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was discussed individually here with a "no consensus" result. I am still of the opinion that this particular award is notable but not defining for a film, so I am inclined to say delete, though I'm sensitive to the fact that this was discussed just two months ago. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nomination, appropriate list exists. Hekerui (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2011 (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:3D Scenegraph APIs[edit]

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 for capitalization only.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:3D Scenegraph APIs to Category:3D scenegraph APIs

Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style / Wikipedia:Article titles. -- Frap (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt rename Category:3D graphics libraries per Category:Graphics libraries and Graphics library. I just renamed List of 3D graphics APIs to List of 3D graphics libraries, which is the main article. (There's no main article for this specific categorization. Are there 3D graphics APIs that don't use scenegraphs?) --Pnm (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (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:Computational models[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computational models to Category:Models of computation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Less ambiguous (e.g. Model of computation vs. Computational model), matches main article. —Ruud 22:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for disambiguation with Computational model. It's clear from the contents that the category is about Models of computation. --Pnm (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2011 (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.

Modern weapons part two-B[edit]

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/rename. Dana boomer (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Modern mortars with Category:Mortars

Rename Category:Modern nuclear bombs of the United States to Category:Nuclear bombs of the United States

Nominator's rationale: These two were actually tagged as part of the last "modern weapons" CfDs but slipped through the cracks while I was assembling the long list of categories for them. (Thanks, Mike Selinker for catching this!) As discussed at two previous CfDs, "modern" weapons is a rather nebulous designation and "modern" is a type of category grouping that is discouraged. So, this is continuing the process of cleaning them up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy to help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2011 (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:Keystone State Class Crane Ship[edit]

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: convert to article at Keystone State class crane ship.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:Keystone State Class Crane Ship to article Keystone State Class Crane Ships

Nominator's rationale: Category space isn't for article content. This needs to be converted into an article and then all relevant articles categorized under existing Category:Crane ships of the United States Navy œ ^™ 04:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with finding - Still new and couldn't determine why relevant articles weren't linking with category.MarkInSavannah (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Concur, but article name should be Keystone State class crane ship, I believe, by the naming standards used by WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS (and also MOS capitalisation standards...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the renaming but there is a problem in identifying Keystone State class ships. The NVR denotes that only three crane ships are Keystone State. The left hand column denotes the classes, so Gopher State consisting of three ships was correct. I suppose this is a conversation to be held elsewhere. Brad (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be some conflicting information regarding the classes these ships fall under. The reference I used for lumping them all within the same class was United States Navy Fact File. Checking with Brad's reference, I can easily see how a different conclusion could be reached based on this information.MarkInSavannah (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2011 (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:Industrial networking[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No main article or discernable purpose. Pnm (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it was a mistaken attempt to create an article. -- œ ^™ 04:32, 19 February 2011 (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:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden[edit]

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Do we really need that? Strong BLP concerns. Almost impossible to define? Bodyguard for Osama is not an established profession. Alleged by whom? See also WP:ALLEGED and WP:LABEL- IQinn (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not defining characteristic. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allegation is an insufficiently strong basis for categorisation, and the alleged status disappears as one follows up the category tree into Category:Al-Qaeda members by role (which also contains two other "alleged" subcategories). AllyD (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - alleged? really? that's hardly a 'reliable source' sort of descriptor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People indicted as bodyguards of Osama bin Laden or Category:People accused of being bodyguards of Osama bin Laden or something like that. I get the argument for deletion but the point of the category is to group people currently or formerly detained (typically in Guantanamo) in part because they are accused of being bodyguards of bin Laden. The term "alleged" should of course be avoided but the idea of grouping these individuals together doesn't seem so ludicrous if it's based on their common legal problems. Pichpich (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any person in history "indicted as bodyguards of Osama bin Laden"? Where is that defined? Is that a crime itself in law? Regarding the second suggestion: "accused" seems to come with the same problems as "alleged"? Should we than not also include in the definition who accuses them? Would a title like that withstand BLP? Is a cook or a driver a considered to be a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden? Does he actually employ paid bodyguards? Do they sign contract? IQinn (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but read the articles. It's in the Summary of Evidence memos. Pichpich (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read them already. CSRT is not a court and these are not incitements. Some people actually call them Kangaroo courts but of course this is not a court and has never been. Not an answer to any of my questions to be found there. Not to be rude. IQinn (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some? Everybody (except the CSRT) calls the CSRT a kangaroo court, deservedly so. That's not the point. Your nomination asks "alleged by whom?". The answer is "by the CSRT" and there's no question that these individuals are stuck in Guantanamo in part because of that accusation. I think that's enough to make it a defining characteristic. To quote from the WP:ALLEGED guideline: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes." The CSRT could be referenced in the category's name if you're worried about the source of the accusation. Pichpich (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said CSRT is not a trial and being Osamas bodyguard is defined as a crime under what law? So what is renaming. What should it be. People accused at one point during the CSRT in Guantanamo to be Osama bin Laden's bodyguard? Or what? IQinn (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSRT is not a trial but it is a tribunal. Should it have legitimacy? That's a fascinating but irrelevant question. However it unquestionably had authority and individuals in the above category can attest to that. The complexity or oddity of a potential category name is not a valid objection. We can debate whether this is a defining characteristic but, as it stands, your initial nomination statement is very weak. "Bodyguard" is a fairly precise term, "alleged" can be made precise in this context, WP:ALLEGED does not apply. Pichpich (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyguard of Osama bin Laden is not a precise term at all as shown and as no other suitable category name can be found it should be deleted for the reasons that the delete !votes have confirmed. IQinn (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"as no other suitable category name can be found"? That's just wrong and there are plenty of categories with convoluted names that attest to that. I'm also not swayed by the argument that bodyguard of Osama bin Laden is not a precise term. It is made precise by the common accusations levelled at these individuals. Pichpich (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) "It is made precise by the common accusations levelled at these individuals." You have any secondary sources that confirm this? 2) So please give us now the exact new name so that we have a clear basis for discussion. IQinn (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources that they are bodyguards of Bin Laden of course not. But again, this is not what this category is about. You'll find plenty of secondary sources confirming that they were detained under that accusation. Pichpich (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This here is a category almost entirely added to BLP's. Just to look at the primary sources is not enough to satisfy BLP. I have no problem with articles like this one here. List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches. But information directly added to BLP's are a different issue. It would also be difficult to make the article NPOV as many of the allegations made during CSRT are false. I have no problem with renaming. So what would be you suggestion for a new name that would fix all the problems mentioned in the discussions here? IQinn (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue is not secondary sources that they were bodyguards of bin Laden. That would certainly be required to populate Category:Bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. The category, though currently ill-named, is concerned with those accused of this by the CSRT and detained in part based on that (yes, potentially phony) accusation. Sources confirming that this accusation was made abound. That's not debatable. What is debatable is whether this is a sufficiently defining characteristic to warrant a category. The category's name is also an issue but we should settle this once we've come to a conclusion on whether to have a category or not. Also, I don't buy the BLP argument because the category is not including anything that isn't already clearly stated in the article. The example you give (List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches) is interesting in that respect. Oftentimes, the sole source is the CSRT document (or an equivalent) and it would be fine to build a category out of this. I'll admit that Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches sounds ludicrous because the accusation itself is so laughable. Yet, I suppose that if you're sitting in Guantanamo and thinking "I should have bought a Timex" then you probably agree that your Casio watch is a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks to me very much like the kind of thing that could be in an article list but should not be categorized. When I saw it, I too initially thought of the Casio watches allegation. Since I imagine (I'm just speculating here) that it would not be particularly unusual for members of al-Qaeda to pledge to defend OBL with their lives, even alleging that someone has been one of OBL's "bodyguards" may not amount to much of anything beyond an allegation that they were a member of al-Qaeda and they were personally associated with OBL. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 24 February 2011 (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:Linux viruses[edit]

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, but move non-viruses into Category:Linux malware.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Linux viruses to Category:Linux malware

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with Category:Malware, Category:Mac OS X malware. The category contains multiple kinds of malware, not just viruses. Pnm (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, per nom. -- œ ^™ 04:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename It makes more sense to create Category:Linux malware and place Category:Linux viruses as a subcategory. (actually, I'll go and do just that for Windows) Pichpich (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2011 (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:Empty categories[edit]

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 per the discussion from a month ago.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Note that this category was nominated for deletion previously on January 9 of this year (see CFD Log/2011 Jan 9), and the result was keep. I'd like to reargue the need for this category as it serves no functional purpose. No categories would be placed here manually by someone who just wouldn't use the speedy deletion tag for empty categories. Only two templates exist that would place categories here when contents are possibly removed out of process ({{Albums category}} and {{Album label category}}). These templates were created by one person (the same who created this category) and have not been accepted by consensus and not utilized by anyone else. Anyway, a better way to find empty categories in general that haven't been nominated for speedy deletion is to check Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (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:Transportation in Canada[edit]

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 match parent article. The affected subcategories should be nominated separately, since there seems to be a need for further discussion on these. Because of the need for discussion, they should not be speedied, and should instead be put up for a full CfD.. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transportation in Canada to Category:Transport in Canada

Nominator's rationale: To match the article Transport in Canada. Canada is "conflicted" on the Transportation/Transport issue, as evidenced by this paragraph of the head article: "Transport Canada oversees and regulates most aspects of transportation within Canadian jurisdiction. Transport Canada is under the direction of the federal government's Minister of Transport. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is responsible for maintaining transportation safety in Canada by investigating accidents and making safety recommendations." Since that's the case, I think matching the head article makes the most sense. There are tons of subcategories, and those will be nominated for speedy renaming if this passes.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of affected categories

Support, consistant with sister categories, and main article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, I thought we were only talking about the one category. I support a move to Transport in Canada because of the main article, and the name of the agency, Transport Canada. But I oppose the moves to anything that is different than the articles or agencies. Alberta should stay, because it is Alberta Transportation, Edmonton should stay because of Edmonton Transportation, and the main article. I think it was wrong to change the affected categories, after people had commented. 117Avenue (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put the list up to show everyone what categories might be affected if we changed transportation to transport globally, but not necessarily to change them with this nomination. That can be the subject of further nominations if people want. The closer should just note whether the above categories should be changed after the close, or whether they should all be nominated separately. Regardless, because there's an objection, we won't do it speedily.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Canada prefers "transport" over "transportation", by my personal experience. Although, unlike Britain (transport) or the US (transportation), there is no clearcut choice. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 117Avenue. Beagel (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Transport" is bilingual! Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really care To say that Canada is "conflicted" is a major understatement. Let's look at government agencies: Transportation Safety Board of Canada and Transport Canada. Score 1-1. Let's see the ministry's name: Minister of Transport (Canada). Score 2-1, transport. But then again: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation (Ontario), Department of Transportation (New Brunswick), Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation (Manitoba). Score 6-2 transportation (from what I checked this is true in all provinces, save Quebec). Pichpich (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget Canadian Transportation Agency. Or, for that matter, Canadian Transport Commission, Transport 2000 Canada, Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communication, and Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh... I'm almost tempted to suggest Category:Transport(ation) in Canada or Category:Movement of people and goods in Canada. Pichpich (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't mind Category:Transport(ation) in Canada ... it would make it a Canadian solution :) Much like some of the weird bilingual names things have sometimes. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename to be consistent with sister articles Sister categories are not relevant. The English variety to use is based on the each country's use of English, not based on some majority use by sister categories. There may be Canadian reasons for renaming, but not this rename reason. Hmains (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the rationale for the nomination. The rationale is that in the case of an unclear preference, we should match the head article, which is Transport in Canada.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article Transport in Canada. Both are used in Canada due to the hyrbid UK/US nature of Canadian English, but the article and the category should of course match. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Both forms seem to be used in Canada but we need to change all of them to one or the other. Transport Canada and Minister of Transport (Canada) seem to suggest that the national government prefers transport. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. - Darwinek (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Transport for consistency, back up preference to rename other categories to Transportation. I have to say Category:Movement of people and goods in Canada is tempting... Timrollpickering (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since these all match the parent Category:Transportation in North America. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I don't have strong feelings about this but this is still a silly argument. If the name used in Canada is "transport" then the category's name should use "transport" regardless of the name most widely used in North America (which of course is synonymous to "most widely used in the US"). A name reflective of local common use is more important than a slight improvement in consistency. Pichpich (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the name used by the parent category is irrelevant since there are already subcategories of the North American category using "transport". McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it seems kind of silly to enforce a non-existent consistency! I've had different opinions about proper names before, but this is our naming convention. Constantly discussing mass changes based on the consistent rationale is annoying. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- What's our naming convention: to be inconsistent? There is no point to inconsistency and opposing it just because the inconsistency doesn't bother you seems like a pretty non-existent reason to keep them at their current name. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:38, 28 February 2011 (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.