Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 22

< March 21	March 23 >

March 22

NEW NOMINATIONS

Proposed Category Building Category:Diamond Grinding of pavement] building on as own page.

Nominator's Rationale This current category on the Category:Diamond Blade page could be expanded to include many articles, findings and resources for readers as one page entitled Diamond Grinding. I have a list of articles that discuss this technique for diamond grinding of pavement that can expand upon this topic. Currently, if you look up diamond grinding, it takes you to the Diamond Blade page with just a category for Diamond grinding of pavement - there is so much more to the topic than this two paragraph section. Please consider the building off of this category to it's own page. Wendyfables, 16:11 22, March 2010

Category:Drilling and threading

Propose renaming Category:Drilling and threading to to something

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Drilling, which is different then Category:Drilling technology which applies to big holes in the ground, and threading are two different things. Threads are added to holes or can be added while a hole is created. I'm not sure if a rename or a split is needed. The parent categories are also interesting. I don't see these are being cutting tools, accepting that a drill bit does cut, so including the category in Category:Cutting tools seems like over categorization. Then the only other parent is Category:Metalworking which might be appropriate but there may be better choices and some of these tools also are used on wood. Maybe Category:Metal cutting tools would work? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – many of these such as Buttress thread are not tools of any sort so including the category in Category:Cutting tools is mis-categorization. There could be a subcat Category:Drilling and threading tools to contain the tools ... but one does wish to exclude oil drilling from this in some way. There is also Category:Metalworking tools. Occuli (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metalworking fabrication

Propose renaming Category:Metalworking fabrication to Category:Fabrication (metal)

Nominator's rationale: The current name is grammatically incorrect; metalworking is not fabricated, metal is fabricated. In order to match the article name I propose it should be moved to category:fabrication (metal); plus the work is usually just regarded as "fabrication work". Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chess films

Propose merging Category:Chess films to Category:Films about chess

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is only one entry in this category and this subject is also covered by the Category:Films about chess. Cjc13 (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War on Terrorism orders of battle

Propose renaming Category:War on Terrorism orders of battle to Category:War on Terror orders of battle

Nominator's rationale: Rename as per War on Terror. (Or delete if the category is deemed unnecessary). JokerXtreme (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. As this is a ongoing event it will be best to Keep for the moment. That can be reconsidered after we have had the opportunity to look back and see whether it is relevant. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we should keep this for now. Can you elaborate? --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a current event and we are really too close to make a proper decision on whether to keep or delete. At present it seems to be worthy of keeping; but I would prefer to wait until we have the benefit of hindsight and see where it fits into the greater picture. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can rename for now and decide over its deletion later. Or just decide if we should delete now. I was wondering whether it should be deleted myself; it only has 4 articles. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. If not renamed it should be upmerged to its 2 parents, both of which are quite large. Occuli (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about the War on Terrorism

Propose renaming Category:Books about the War on Terrorism to Category:Books about the War on Terror

Nominator's rationale: Rename as per War on Terror. JokerXtreme (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War on Terrorism

Propose renaming Category:War on Terrorism to Category:War on Terror

Nominator's rationale: Rename it as per the main article: War on Terror. JokerXtreme (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GeForce series mGPUs

Category:GeForce series mGPUs - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Category only includes two redirects that both happen to direct to the category itself.

ie, this is actually a loophole. uKER (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - the category does indeed contain at present 2 redirects as described. However GeForce_8-series_chipsets was once in it (or was intended for it but the editor, having created the category, has misspelt its name for the article). (The name needs to be expanded. mGPU seems to be 'motherboard graphics processing unit'. First there should be Category:GPUs or Category:Graphics processing units.) Occuli (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected MGPU to GeForce#mGPUs, so that'd be covered. Also, there's no reason to have the GeForce 8 series listed as mGPUs since although they include mGPUs, they aren't mGPUs. --uKER (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User categories for discussion

Category:User categories for discussion - Template:Lc1

Category:User categories for discussion templates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Old category no longer in use, user categories are now discussed through the CfD process and are categorized in Category:Categories for discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as housekeeping / empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as housekeeping per WP:CSD#G6 or as empty per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sick Wid It Records albums

Propose renaming Category:Sick Wid It Records albums to Category:Sick wid It Records albums

Nominator's rationale: WP:CAPS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) (I also moved Sick wid It Records.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All mentions I've found of this record label capitalize their name as Sick Wid It Records, including their MySpace page. Gobonobo ^T ^C 06:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am surprised to hear that WP:CAPS addresses the capitalisation of 'wid'. Occuli (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first rule of MoS(tm) says to capitalize trademarks as proper names. I would think that means capitalize all words, as is done with proper names. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SNK versus-series video games

Propose renaming Category:SNK versus-series video games to Category:Capcom Vs. Series

Nominator's rationale: Aside from SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash, SNK vs. Capcom: The Match of the Millennium, and SNK vs. Capcom: SVC Chaos, none of the games in this category were developed or published by SNK; however, all of these were developed by Capcom, published by Capcom, or feature Capcom characters, so it makes more sense to include their name in the title instead. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was all discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_4#Category:Vs._.28series.29, which closed only 28 hours ago by merging various categories to Category:SNK versus-series video games. One of the old categories was Category:VS. Capcom series, which is now the rename target ... so we are being asked to go around in a circle. AFAICS this all relates to SNK vs. Capcom (series) and Template:SNK vs. Capcom_series, which looks like the logical title for any further refinement of the names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But why would they be given the "SNK" title when SNK only developed three of them while Capcom did all the rest? That makes no sense. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because according to SNK vs. Capcom (series), the distinguishing characteristic of these games is that they include characters from both SNK and Capcom games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But SNK characters are only in the ones with SNK in the title whereas all of them have Capcom characters. So why do games like Marvel vs. Capcom and Tatsunoko vs Capcom get forced into the category when SNK had nothing to do with them? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the scope of the category is broader than that of the template. The best solution is probably to just delete the category, since there seem to be too many permutations involved to make a neat category, and the template already provides navigation between one of the many possible groupings in this area. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above: this is too esoteric for a category. I have read this and the previous cfd and am scarcely the wiser, especially as there is no article SNK. ('Capcom Vs. Series' is one of the least accessible category names ever seen at cfd.) Occuli (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted due to the failure to tag the category with a notice of the original discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fan club releases

Propose renaming Category:Fan club releases to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Fan clubs aren't just for musical groups or musicians, so it's not clear that this category strictly applies to musical releases. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest 'Fan club release albums' (as the 3rd or 4th one is described as such). This does seem to be a defining characteristic, mentioned immediately in each article. Occuli (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Singles

Category:British Singles - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete as an arbitrary grouping: it is defined as "Some of The UK's most popular and well-known singles whether it's from the past, present or future". Normally I would suggest merging to Category:British songs, but I believe all of the articles are already appropriately categorized as songs by a particular artist, and the songs by artist categories can be in Category:British songs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; although categorising well-known British singles from the future might have commercial implications. Occuli (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom too. Coolhawks88 Coolhawks88 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, what about the singles that weren't released in the chart but only on the album? If that is the case, then there are going to be so many tracks that we don't know about. Minima c (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palestinian-American activists

Propose merging Category:Palestinian-American activists to Category:American activists

Nominator's rationale: there is no precedent for catting activists by ethnic/national descent (it s the only such subcat of Category:American activists) Mayumashu (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]