< May 22	May 24 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 04:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative and likely to change often; this is not a category that will be of any use in several years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it endulge in speculation, especially in categories. This sort of this is much better suited to U.S. presidential election, 2008. --BaronLarf 23:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons outlined. Beta m (talk)

• Disagree. If you followed your own link, you'd see that well-documented speculation is encyclopedic. For every politician on this list, there's a quote or a news article indicating that person is likely to run. Furthermore, this information is useful to users, so Wikipedia should continue to include it. -- Joshdick 20:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Wikipedia including the information, just not in category form. U.S. presidential election, 2008 seems like a better place. --BaronLarf 01:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Categories should be reserved for more substantial characteristics than rumors. -Sean Curtin 01:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In a category it does not belong. Convert to list or put into an article. RedWolf 05:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons stated above. --Kbdank71 14:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 04:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...vandalism in category form. Also, misspelled. Which is really my problem with the whole venture, I hate misspelled titles. And movies in which a guy takesa woman on a really bad date to a place with other naked women. Hate those too.--TheGrza 22:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• The Graduate wasn't too bad... Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• mispelld words sux Delete ℬastique▼^talk 04:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't that stuff be speedied? Delete Beta m (talk)
• BJAODN. Radiant_* 10:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --Azkar 04:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed Category:Dojin soft according to the Japanese spelling conventions at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles. There's also an article's worth of text in the category description which should really be in the article namespace (Doujin soft exists but as a redirect to the category, and anyway it should be spelled Dojin soft). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 17:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Although I don't agree with the Hepburn naming convention, I suppose that if that's the way it's gotta be, then that's the way it's gotta be. Luvcraft 19:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've separated out the textual information into dojin soft. That currently is in Category:Dojin soft, and changed the doujin soft redirect. 132.205.64.154 01:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge --Azkar 04:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Category:Computer networks and deleted. It's clearly a duplicate where subject matter is concerned, and only has 10 articles to merge. Bert Vermeulen 15:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. For the reason above, plus it might cause confusion since networking also means networking of people, thus a theoretical possibility of sociology articles also claiming their place there. Beta m (talk)

Agree. Oleg Alexandrov 18:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Restore --Azkar 04:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose these renamings, for the following reasons: (1) the categories were created under the names on the right and moved without a consensus of the editors who work on these articles; (2) the categories are intended for articles about battles involving a country, for example Category:English battles is for battles in which England was one of the combatants. The location of battles is less interesting than the participants; after all, many of the most interesting English battles have been fought overseas. (3) Some of the "Battles in" names are ridiculous or simply wrong. For example, where exactly is "Franks" supposed to be? None of the battles in Category:Battles in Genoa were fought in Genoa, and none of the Category:Battles in Athens were fought in Athens. So let's put these articles back in correctly-named categories.

Of course, a separate hierarchy of categorization based on location of a battle would be fine, if someone wants to create that. But there was no reason to destroy the existing categorization scheme in order to do that.

I am listing here just those categories that have been moved, or partially moved, following a vote on May 14. A number of other categories were proposed to be moved in that vote, but the move hasn't gone ahead yet. Please consider the general issue in this discussion. Gdr 14:00, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

• Category:Battles in England → Category:English battles
• Category:Battles in Franks → Category:Frankish battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Battles in Genoa → Category:Genoese battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Battles in Georgia → Category:Georgian battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Battles in Germany → Category:German battles
• Category:Battles in Greece → Category:Greek battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 21:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Battles in Iraq → Category:Iraqi battles
• Category:Battles in Ireland → Category:Irish battles
• Category:Battles in Italy → Category:Italian battles
• Category:Battles in Japan → Category:Japanese battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 21:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Battles in Athens → Category:Athenian battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Battles in France → Category:French battles
  • Both categories are properly populated now. mikka (t) 20:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any others I may have missed?

• Agree. The result of these moves was clearly silly and absurd. Uppland 15:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hm, this definitely bears discussion, by some people knowledgeable about warfare (which I'm not). Somewhere below is a vote for the renaming of 'fooish battles' -> 'battles in foo', on grounds that the latter makes for clear categorization (each battle has one distinct location, and at least two participating parties, and plausibly more). It sounds to me that 'battles in foo' is easier, but I'm no expert. Abstain. Radiant_* 15:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• So, is the proposal that the Battle of Agincourt should be in both Category:Battles in France, Category:French battles & Category:English battles? Fornadan 15:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I don't know. That sounds like overcategorization to me. Waterloo featured five countries, IIRC. Does it need six categories? Radiant_* 16:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • The way this is likely to end up working is that battles will be grouped together by war (for example Battle of Agincourt in Category:Battles of the Hundred Years' War) and then those categories are grouped by country (for example Category:Battles of the Hundred Years' War ending up in Category:English battles and Category:French battles). This avoids the over-categorization that you are concerned about. As for Category:Battles in France, I don't know. If someone wants to populate it, that's fine, but they shouldn't believe that it will be as simple as just moving articles from Category:French battles. Gdr 17:11, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that sounds eminently sensible. However, I think geographic locations of battles is also interesting for people, so we should have them too. BTW, British troops fighting German troops in The Netherlands in WW1 is an obvious example of there being no "overlap" between participants and location... James F. (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. --Kbdank71 17:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, of course. Moving these was a significant mistake based on an faulty assumption. James F. (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Far easier to maintain categories of battles by location, rather that who took part. There are many battles in which troops from many different nations all took part - which is easier, to list Gallipoli under "Battles in Turkey" or under "Turkish battles", "British battles", "Australian battles", "New Zealand battles", "Canadian battles", "Newfoundland battles" and "Indian battles"? Grouping it in its war (World War I) would make for even more ridiculous over-categorisation. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorisation should be accurate and useful, not merely easy. Location is sometimes important and sometimes not. Sometimes the modern country name is relevant and sometimes it is not. And how can anyone think that having a category for World War I battles is ridiculous? That's just ridiculous! CalJW 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. During WW2 many battles have taken place between USSR and Germany in Poland. They were not Polish battles. I would suggest having some sort of category for those types of battles (i.e. battle on the "neutral" territory). Beta m (talk)
• Agree. --Jniemenmaa 08:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Query -> I'm not a big categorization expert, but is it possible to have separate category trees for battles by someone, and for battles at some location? Kim Bruning 21:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course! It's certainly possible. Indeed it might be a good idea. But you can't get a category of battles at a location simply by renaming a category of battles by a nation. If you do you end up with nonsense like Category:Battles in Athens. That's why I propose that these categories be moved back to their original locations. People who want categories of battles at a locations are welcome to make them, but please not by destroying the categories of battles by nation! Gdr 22:57, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
• Agree. This the restoration of what was before. The result of the thoughtless move was disaster in some cases. If someone wants a cat by place, by all means, but this was nlot the intention of original cats. mikka (t) 19:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I am reverting the inappropriate moves, leaving the "battes in..." whenevr fits. mikka (t) 19:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Restore to original. Who participated is more usefull than location and over-categorization is a lesser evil than mis-labelling. Fornadan 20:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Restore to original and then separate "in" and "of" categories can be created wherever necessary. CalJW 23:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should merge with parent category on disc-based computer data storage. This cat name doesn't indicate its true content, and it's also wrong since it contains 'CD' even if CDs can be smaller than 120mm. Radiant_* 09:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Though a VCD is hardly a disc-based computer storage medium... 132.205.44.134 22:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Yes it is. See VCD. Radiant_* 21:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's hardly a disc-based computer storage medium. Same goes for DVD-Video and DVD-Audio, and CD-DA. 132.205.45.148 17:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is data storage, not only "computer data". The fact that CDs are subcat is irrelevant problem. mikka (t) 18:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There are quite a few articles in Category:120 mm discs that are also listed in the subcats Category:CD and Category:DVD. Assuming we can eliminate the duplicate categorization, I see no problem upmerging into the parent. --Azkar 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.