- Category:Battles and Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War to Category:Operations in Western Virginia – C2D: Operations in Western Virginia 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this one should be Category:Western Virginia Campaign per Western Virginia Campaign.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate why you would think that, as the WV Campaign was just a short period during the war, while the scope of the existing category is for all Operations in Western Virginia of the American Civil War (not juat one campaign). Implementing your thought would mistakenly reduce the scope of the category. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused. All the contents are part of the 1861 Western Virginia Campaign, so the category should be calledCategory:Western Virginia Campaign. There's nothing here from the later parts of the war.--Mike Selinker(talk) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So...objection? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) ||||| Is this question some kind of joke or other attempt at humor? The poster's Comment above clearly supports the nomination (opposes the change in scope): "I still don't agree that we should be changing the name from what the WP main article is", which simply restates the speedy reason for this nomination: "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article" 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I have to. The nominator and I both want this renamed, but we disagree as to what.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'm really confused. Today, the nominator changed Operations in Western Virginia from a redirect to a short article. But there's no campaign called "The Operations in Western Virginia." There is a campaign called the Western Virginia Campaign. I'm pretty sure C2D doesn't apply when you invent the article in the middle of the nomination, but maybe I don't understand the nominator's intent. Can you clarify?--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To help resolve the claimed confusion (I doubt he actually has any) I marked the category as underpopulated and started adding WV operations since, as mentioned by the nominator, there are many WP articles for military engagements in this area of operationsafter the Western Virginia Campaign, which only had 8 (more operations after than during). The article is quite clear about "the many later engagements in Western Virginia" and in his opposition for several May 3 speedy nominations, the poster who alleges confusion specifically claims that a change of scope is improper, so he knows--without confusion--that his thought to reduce the scope significantly is invalid and this speedy nomination meets C2D (probably why he hasn't yet stated opposition to it). What the feigned confused wants is a different category with a different scope, and instead of just creating it--he's trying to throw out a different valid category (which is comparable to several other "Operations in North Alabama", etc. categories he identifies should be kept). Also, he claims the nominated category is invalid because it is "no category" but again, other "Middle Tennessee Operations", etc categories aren't for campaigns and he thinks they're OK. And he claims that the article page created in 2010 (the template was created in 2004, the battles were in 1863, and have been described verbatim for years at WP) was now "invented" 2 years later? This type of dishonesty needs to be stopped and is the sort that gives WP a bad name. How much similarly false BS has he posted in articles? 30 SW (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, but did you really need to expose the confused's bad faith? I can understand that he no longer deserved the assumption of it, but this rename was going to go regardless of whether by this speedy nomination or a subsequent nomination/creation. Hopefully he'll stop the BS--I think the problem is a lack of him actually applying critical thinking before posting (maybe he hasn't that skill?). Also, I noticed your edits populating the category were immediately preceded by an IP user doing the same-- was that you before logging-in? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, there was no need for any of that venom. I was trying to find out why the nominator wanted something that didn't appear to be merited by the contents of the category. I didn't assume any bad faith, and I would appreciate it if you do so as well. I'm going to officially oppose this now, because now User 30 SW has filled the category with articles that weren't there before. This Speedy nomination seems like it can't proceed now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the original purpose of this category was for the 1861 campaign, not for any Civil War battle which occured in West Virginia. As I see it now, the category could just as well be merged into the West Virginia in the ACW category. Perhaps the best solution would be to par it down to the original content and rename it to "1861 Western Viriginia campaign". Wild Wolf (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|