Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 9

: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 as nominated. Also, the arguments are strong for a nomination of all the :Category:Modern firearms categories to something else.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Modern firearms of the Switzerland to :Category:Modern firearms of Switzerland

:Nominator's rationale: There is no country called "the Switzerland". Though we should reconsider the utility of categories such as :Category:Modern firearms altogether; what does "modern" mean in this context?  Sandstein  15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• See modern weapons (which I am not presuming to defend as an article). postdlf (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

:*That article, which is very bad, essentially says that "modern weapons" are whatever weapons are new at any given time. That is not helpful for categorization purposes.  Sandstein  16:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

:Speedy move on 'the Switzerland' issue. Neutral on 'modern' issue. Munci (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Recategorize into Switzerland categories for each type of firearm within :Category:Firearms by country, unless already so categorized, then delete. --Bsherr (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 22. Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses to :Category:Shared IP addresses

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. No Wikipedia-project-related reason to distinguish. Bsherr (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – this seems to be added by {{tl|SharedIPCORP}}. I don't share the nom's confidence that there is no 'reason to distinguish'. Occuli (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Could you tell me how I might secure your confidence? --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose no valid reason not to distinguish. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't understand. If it's useless to the administration of the encyclopedia, why keep it? --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Regardless of the merge, this category and the target category need some sort of identifier showing this is a category for Wikipedia user pages, such as :Category:Wikipedia user pages that are shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses, due to the possibility of confusion for someone thinking there is a series of articles on shared IP addresses or corporation/business IP addresses. VegaDark (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Such is already proposed for the target category. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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 as named. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Science fiction book series to :Category:Science fiction novel series

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per parents :Category:Science fiction novels, :Category:Novel series and in comparison to :Category:Fantasy novel series. Tim! (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment a scifi book series need not be composed of novels. For instance, the War World military scifi book series is a series of anthologies. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per 76.66.200.95. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per two above. I would, however, support renaming the three examples in the rationale in the opposite direction. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Trilogies by Robertson Davies to :Category:Novels by Robertson Davies

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to be the only author with a category dedicated to trilogies, and there are only four in the category. Also merge into :Category:Literary trilogies. Tim! (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge to :Category:Novels by Robertson Davies and :Category:Literary trilogies per nom. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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) 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Death anniversaries}}

:Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category; delete and recategorize the one article with the parent categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Upmerge to :Category:Anniversaries. There is no need for a category for one article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Upmerge as Armbrust: we only have a main article and no other content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

----

: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.

: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. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Official Apologies by United States of America}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete, imprecise and overbroad. It pretends at being defined by a term of art "official apologies", yet there is no clear definition as to what constitutes such an apology. Is it enough that the President gave an apology in a formal ceremony? A joint statement by Cabinet members? Most damning, all but one of the included articles are not about apologies, but rather (I assume) things for which some official or agency of the U.S. government has apologized. Native Americans in the United States was added by the category's creator, which indicates how vague and unworkable this category is. The only article included that is about an apology explains that such a resolution by Congress has no legal effect, and it's not clear from the article that Congress even agreed that it was an apology ("Apology Resolution" is apparently a colloquial name for it) rather than an "acknowledgment" or some other such euphemism. Literally this category would also include friendly fire incidents, mistaken prosecutions and imprisonments...so long as someone, anyone, within the government afterward admitted that it was a mistake or regrettable incident. Or maybe I'm wrong in thinking this category is irredeemably unfocused and overbroad. postdlf (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and change to "Official apologies" with small "a". Official presidential apologies, official state department apologies, and official congressional apologies should be included as these are by institutions and not individuals, and represent the government. If it gets too big they can be divided by Congress, President, and State Department, but its rare that the government formally apologizes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Rename to "Official apologies by the United States". The category can be more specifically defined at its category page, if desired, but, for now, I don't see why the dictionary definitions of "official" and "apology" are insufficient to define the category. --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• But even setting the definitional issue aside as to what constitutes an "official apology" by the U.S., one of the biggest problems is that there is only one article about an apology in this category. Maybe there are more, but for now the category is instead largely "Things for which the United States has apologized", or in one instance, Native Americans in the United States, "people to whom the United States has apologized for...something." postdlf (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, so rename to "Subjects of official apologies by the United States". Does that resolve the issue? (I also removed Native Americans in the United States because I don't see mention of an official apology in the article.) --Bsherr (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a valid topic as the United States government in one form or another has apologized for its actions on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, the inability to precisely define what constitutes an "official apology", as well as the various forms such apologies can take, necessitates more attention and description than a simple category can provide. Ideally we would start an article dividing into sections the various levels of apologies: by Congress, by the President, by Cabinet members, by states, and permutations thereof. I'll get to work right away. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Does the creation of a list preclude the category? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• This might be useful if we had articles about the apologies themselves — but as pointed out by Postdlf, this category is being applied mainly to things the US has apologized for and/or people the US has apologized to. Given that categories are generally supposed to be applied on the basis of what the primary topic of the article is, and not on the basis of random related keywords that aren't defining characteristics of the thing itself, that means the only article that actually belongs here is Apology Resolution. And if that's all we've got, then we don't need a category for it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Does the proposed rename above resolve the issue? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Not exactly, IMO; it would solve the issue as I've phrased it, but would raise the new issue of "Why do we need this anyway, isn't it total WP:OCAT?" Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Which of the sections in WP:OCAT do you think it falls under? --Bsherr (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have :Category:Apologies, so having this one category be this specific seems unneeded, especially for articles that are not about the apologies themselves.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Wouldn't such a category "Apologies" be so overbroad as to be useless? --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Almost certainly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Doesn't that contradict your argument? --Bsherr (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• I never said I wanted such a category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Bearcat. We don't have more than one article about the apologies themselves, and it doesn't make sense to me to have a category for things that have been the subject of some sort of apology from a government. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As the nominator and GOF know, the Government of Canada has issued a number of these of late, as well. I'd have no objection to creating a global category for official apologies by governments (or other bodies) but it would have to be for articles on the apologies themselves, not things that are being apologized for. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Bearcat and Good Ol’factory. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

----

: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.