< February 8 February 10 >

February 9

Category:OS/2 text editors

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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator without any outstanding non-keep !votes. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty (one entry moved to parent category). Be..anyone (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red X I withdraw my nomination after Matthiaspaul extended the category to no-nonsense. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Holy Land during Byzantine rule

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, i.e. do not rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As explained in article Holy land, this is more a religious concept than a name of an area. This one is the exception within relevent historical categories, which mostly use Palestine, Israel or Syria trespassers william (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think that the proposer agrees that it is "a relevant historical category". That's why he wants to give it an historical name, not a religious one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no current state of Palestine...When talking about P in relation to Byzantine history, any confusion can be cleared with one click, which is better than with using Israel. But there is no prob with Palaestina provinces under Byzantine rule, Byzantine Palaestinae Prima (like "Ottoman Syria"), or plain eponymous cats (one or two). Surely, you are not opposing to doing away with "Holy Land"? trespassers william (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user is referring to State of Palestine, which is a current entity, though not universally recognised. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Isn't it funny how often the ploy of decrying politics is used right after a political stance is taken? Everybody's stance is political except one's own stance of course. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On my part, I already wrote a cat of Byzantine Ps hould be styled as to make it clear it refers to the province(s), not the timeless thing. trespassers william (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Centuries in Israel

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. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most centuries only should be under Category:History of Palestine. trespassers william. Maybe pre-Roman ones shouldn't. (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought of using the working definition in Category:History of Israel. Browsing around, the cat under discussion looked like an anomaly, even if other exceptions can be found. trespassers william (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Medieval Israel

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, do not rename. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems WP is leaning toward identifying Palestine as the more historically stable name of the area. See eg Category:Land of Israel. If we do not resort to double categorization just to avoid the headache, this should be renamed, along with some others I will propose. trespassers william (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think that the central point here is that "current country Israel" didn't exist during the middle ages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a lot of sense in that too. When dealing with more local history, like archeological sites that saw many rulers, it becomes a little silly to pick one historical name of the land, rather than the country where the site is actually located. Broader topics still feel like they are stuck in the terminal.
Now maybe the way to go is creating Category:Middle Ages in Palestine as a SUBCAT, in Israel's as well as Lebanon's, Syria's etc? Or to rename / split Category:Middle Ages by country, into Category:Middle Ages by current country and Category:Middle Ages by former country (or region)? To be honest, I thought there would be more solid precedents to work with. trespassers william (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not against that as long Serbian counterpart has interwiki link(s). -- Bojan  Talk  04:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ideally that would be true, but history is not only done this way, but also written this way. Should we start counting reliable sources at [1], or be as bold as suggest deleting Category:Medieval Italy? What I am trying to do is find out the more stable way to refer to an area. With Israel/Palestine, it has the added bonus that the current layout of the area is significantly smaller pieces than in previous centuries, so useful sets of topic in such areas as crusader or Roman history would be united. but at the bottom line, this is an index, and readers and might want to find the history of a (smaller) land ordered in one place. In this case, a more systematic distinction between cats by country and cats by region (See Template:Middle Ages by region) will do. trespassers william (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment While the Jewish people have existed, and continue to exist, for millennia, their state or states have not done so. There were large tracts of time when Jews were a minority people in their former state(s). During those periods, the conquerors' de facto name(s) ought to be employed. This in no way diminishes any cultural or religious ties that the defeated Jews may have felt towards the conquered territories during those periods; it merely recognises geo-political realities. The situation may be contrasted with Ireland which, for the better part of 800 years was a conquered state(s), yet at no time did the conqueror re-name the territory so it correct to speak of it as Ireland throughout. This is not the case with Israel or the Land of Israel. This proposal and alternative proposal has nothing to do with the delegitimization of Israel as it did not exist as a state at that time. It is a legitimate state of the 20th and 21st centuries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to go that direction than it shouldn't be Palestine anyway, it would be Eretz Yisrael or Cana'an which was used even during the Roman conquests times... dating back over 5 millennia. --CyberXRef☎ 22:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Query Is Greyshark and those who cite their support for his rationale voting for "Keep as is" or for "Delete entirely"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - those who agree with him and and those who said "Oppose" obviously think that the category should be kept as is, since the proposal was to change its name, not to 'delete it entirely'. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is that obvious, when GreyShark explicitly wants to delete (any Medieval <state>, referring to modern states which didn't exist in Middle Ages, should be deleted. period.)? trespassers william (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposal was strictly "Renaming 'Category:Medieval Israel' to 'Category:Medieval Palestin'"; that's what being opposed. --CyberXRef☎ 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, I oppose this rename.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Cold War passenger ships

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 all. Confirmed that all are now correctly up-categorised, so no merger necessary. The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cold War passenger ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Cold War passenger ships of Denmark
  • Propose deleting Category:Cold War passenger ships of Greece
  • Propose deleting Category:Cold War passenger ships of Japan
  • Propose deleting Category:Cold War passenger ships of the Netherlands
  • Propose deleting Category:Cold War passenger ships of the United Kingdom
or upmerge to "Category:Passenger ships of Foo". DexDor (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing passenger ships by a military era is a bit odd. Presumably other editors think so to and haven't been putting many articles into these categories (unless there really was just one passenger-carrying ship designed, built, or operated in Greece from 1945 to 1990). The articles I've checked are in plenty of other categories. DexDor (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, although only one article currently in these cats needs such an upmerge (the others are in "Category:Ferries of Foo" etc). DexDor (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune

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: listify. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convert Category:Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune to article List of Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune
Nominator's rationale: We categorize articles about individual (naval) ships by the wars they've taken part in - a particular ship is unlikely to play an active part in many wars so that's not an unreasonable characteristic to categorize by. However, categorizing ships by military operations could lead to some ship articles being in many categories. This is better covered by a list - advantages include the ability to include ships that we don't (yet) have an article about and consistency with pages like List of Allied warships that served at Gallipoli. DexDor (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:People from Kalida, Ohio

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just three entries. ...William 18:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Petron Blaze Boosters seasons

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 per C2D (San Miguel Beermen). The Bushranger One ping only 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The PBA team has been reverted to it's original name "San Miguel Beermen" as announced by its owners last January (see source). -WayKurat (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Howitzers of the Cold War

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 single article to Category:Cold War artillery of the Soviet Union‎ and delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or merge the single article to Category:Cold War artillery of the Soviet Union‎.DexDor (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one article (which is in plenty of other categories). Deleting this category would be a (small) step towards tidying up this area of categorization which is a bit muddled because terms like Howitzer and Field artillery have several meanings. DexDor (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Proposed Cold War military equipment

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; content merged to Category:Proposed military equipment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. The only article in this category is in plenty of other categories. DexDor (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically all those characters are comic book characters, with a "in other media" entry detailing the films. Of course, the marvel cinematic universe is not the single adaption of Marvel comics to other media, and we can't categorize characters for all the works where they have appeared. The only original characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe who got their own articles are Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig; very few to keep a category just for them Cambalachero (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.
More