Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2011[edit]
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.
upmerge all proposed stations by year categories to Category:Proposed railway stations As anyone who has ever paid attention to this sort of planning knows, it's common for stations that are already under construction to slip schedule or even be abandoned uncompleted. If construction hasn't even started, it's always safe to assume that the date of opening is unrealistic. I tend to believe that we should not have articles on stations which haven't begun construction, but in any case categorizing them by the hoped-for year of opening is a clear-cut transgression against WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of the by year categories is that it allows someone to cleanup a bunch of articles every year. An upmerge to Category:Proposed railway stations makes that cleanup more difficult. Having said that, I don't think that this small benefit is worth keeping the categories. I would support your proposed upmerge, maybe after some cleanup on the 2011 contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete, but manually empty first. Either the stations opened as scheduled and can be recategorised to "stations opened in 2011", or they failed to open and need to be recategorised to their new target date. If contruction has not even started, there should be no article as WP:CRYSTAL applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I pretty much agree with Peterkingiron, except for the part about deleting articles as WP:CRYSTAL. This looks like something that can you can jump to conclusions about too quickly. I'm sure some of you already know I brought the issue of this category up in the TWP Talk page. If however we decide to do as Mangoe suggested, they should really be sent to some of the regoinal categories instead(i.e; Proposed railway stations in Europe, North America, etcetera). ----DanTD (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after manually emptying it). I have started on that. The one railway station I did was actually opened in 2012. This makes me think that we should not do anticipated year of opening categories at all. I hate to make Vegaswikian sad, but we already have by continent categories for proposed railway station, with by country categories as well. I am not sure why.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observation; - There are still seven stations in this category, six of which are based in The Netherlands, and the other in Scotland. Since all have country categories attached it would be pointless to replace them with continent categories. I really wish I knew where else we can look to update the status of these stations, so we can make the deletion process easier. --DanTD 21:17, 30 August 2012 (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.
Gah, what a mess. From what I can tell, this category was created today by a user who then moved all the contents from the Comcast SportsNet category to it out of process. Which has now been cleaned up, leaving the NBCSRN category empty. Given that it was empty I've gone ahead and made it a category redirect to Category:Comcast SportsNet, which I suggest retaining and closing this as already cleaned up. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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.
Oppose I see no strong reason to upmerge the cat from TCP/IP to TCP. For the rename from TCP to Transmission Control Protocol though, that's a real rejection of WP:COMMONNAME. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Deleted earlier comment, sorry I misunderstood your reply)
Personally I don't care if it's renamed to "TCP" or "Transmission Control Protocol". I chose the latter because that's how the main article is called, though I agree it fails WP:COMMONNAME. But as it stands, the name "TCP/IP" is a misnomer and mostly overlaps with Category:Internet protocols. -- intgr[talk]08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "IP" in "TCP/IP" doesn't stand for "Internet protocols", it stands for "Internet Protocol", which is different. IP is just one clearly-defined member of the many protocols covered by Category:Internet protocols. All of these names are historical, not our choice.
TCP is one protocol, in contrast to UDP, that is used on top of IP. It's only ever used over IP (exceptions to this are literally exceptional). TCP also outweighs UDP in terms of traffic and programmer effort. So its historical use has been that the general everyday term used for doing transport-level coding work on teh internets has been "TCP/IP". This may not be strictly accurate, but that's language use for you. It doesn't imply that a Category:TCP/IP is trying to cover every Internet protocol (small p) out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the TCP/IP article redirect to Internet protocol suite? Why is that the "main page" of the category? The fact that we're having this conversation is evidence that "TCP/IP" is a confusing term and should not be used. You never hear anyone talk about "UDP/IP" for instance.
Try searching for "TCP/IP" on Google. Most of the top results are not specific to TCP -- they're general pages about the network protocol stack. In contrast, nearly all articles in Category:TCP/IP are specific to TCP and not the rest of the stack -- they are pages about TCP extensions, TCP congestion control algorithms, TCP quirks, TCP implementation techniques, etc. -- intgr[talk]15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The phrase "TCP/IP" has been used by the Internet technical community to refer to the family of Internet protocols for many years. It is confusing, but its way too late to change the use of the phrase now. Renaming the existing category to "Transmission Control Protocol", a name that covers just one of the many protocols in the family, is inappropriate. A move of all of the items from the "TCP/IP" category to the "Internet protocol suite" category and making "TCP/IP" into a redirect to the "Internet protocol suite" category would be a better change. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true, but misses the point of the rename. Please refer to the nomination and state which parts you are disagreeing with.
There already is a category for "the family of Internet protocols", it's called Category:Internet protocols -- do you disagree that these are overlapping categories? Do you think we need two overlapping categories?
Fair enough. But can you help to come up with a clearer criteria for this category? "that's where the majority of coding work is focussed" isn't very clear.
The best I can come up with is "anything related to Internet standards (especially IETF standards) from link layer and above, that is used for IP networking" -- it seems that IP is the key element. Does that sound good?
I disagree with your refusal to be helpful. It's not about "[me wanting] subcats here", it's about improving Wikipedia.
As it stands now, Category:TCP/IP is a small collection of arbitrary articles -- which is totally expected from a concept as vague as "the Internet protocol suite". In order to make sense of a category, it needs some criteria to go by, to decide which articles belong and which don't. If you disagree with the criteria I proposed above, please collaborate on making a better one.
I admit I could have been clearer about this: Category talk:TCP/IP#Recategorization lists only those subcategories because I went through all the articles currently in Category:TCP/IP and assigned them to better places. If you say those don't belong in TCP/IP then guess what -- that means the TCP/IP category is currently a mess.
In particular, I put Category:Ethernet is there because that's where Netgear NSDP and Bonjour Sleep Proxy belong -- certainly they're even less related to TCP/IP than Ethernet is.
I agree that having the two categories "Internet protocols" and "TCP/IP" is confusing. I think we should merge them into a single category and that "TCP/IP" should be a synonym for "Internet protocols". I don't see a need for a separate "TCP" category. I would just move everything that is now in the "TCP/IP" category into the existing "Internet protocols" category. I'm fine with keeping the "Internet protocol" category as is. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that creating more subcategories is always helpful, particularly when the typical Wikipedia reader doesn't understand the differences between the subcategories. Few Wikipedia readers understand the difference between TCP and UDP or between TCP and IP. Having the content articles split up across many subcategories enforces a sort of tunnel vision on people and can make it harder for them to find what they are looking for. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well one problem with that is, that Category:Internet protocols is quite crowded already. It has 275 articles currently and this makes finding something from the category pretty unlikely. It also has the "diffusion" tag, which suggests not adding more articles to that cat and to move its current articles into subcategories. I drafted out a plan to for moving articles from "TCP/IP" here: Category talk:TCP/IP#Recategorization. What do you think?
The other reason is that there are tens of articles on Wikipedia, which are deeply specific to TCP (also listed in the above link -- though that list is not complete). I believe putting them in the generic "Internet protocols" category is misleading -- they are not protocols on their own, but just extensions/techniques/phenomena of the TCP protocol. -- intgr[talk]13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I support this idea in principle, about 90% of the articles in this category seem to concern TCP—and we're talking about some pretty obscure topics like specific implementations of TCP and congestion control algorithms here. So the original proposal, renaming the category to Category:Transmission Control Protocol, and then selective moving some of the articles to Category:Internet protocols would be less work than the other way around. —Ruud18:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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 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.
Nominator's rationale this is a name change, that did not change the level of categorization of the alumni. There is no precedent for having two categories when the institutions both were general tertiary level institutions of education.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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. This category covers more than the trademarked "Yellow Pages," so should be decapitalized. It would be possible to make a subcategory of this just for the official ones.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases it is indeed a proper name. From what I understand from the discussion and the contents of the category, Golden Pages and Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages are both names of specific directories and therefore are correctly capitalized. In the UK, "Yellow Pages" is used as a proper name when referring to the UK-specific British Telecom directory. However, as a general term, when talking about all such directories, "yellow pages" is a common name. List of Yellow Pages should probably also be uncapitalized. Jafeluv (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The category covers the common noun sense of the term not its proper name sense. If it covered just Yellow Pages items then we should keep the name but it currently covers many other generic yellow pages items that would not belong to a Yellow Pages category. Jojalozzo14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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.
Oppose: This category has been nominated for deletion twice before. It remains, because there is no one category that all the stubs can be upmerged to. G.I. Joe stubs is a sub-category of Animation stubs, Comics stubs, and Toy stubs, but not all G.I. Joe stub articles fall into all of those categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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.
Comment an aerial robot is not synonymous with unmanned, it is only synonymous with optionally piloted/unpiloted, which is not the same as not having an onboard crew or passengers. Some of the proposed personal air vehicles are completely computer piloted, but still have passengers. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category is "aerial robot" not "aerobot" though. So whatever an aerobot is, is not the same as an aerial robot. Indeed, that article seems to indicate an aerobot is a type of aerial robot. -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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.
keep STOL aircraft is an entirely proper categorization with reader value and definable membership conditions. This was previously deleted (by the same nominator) on the grounds that it was 'indefinable'. Yet are we to also AfD STOL and List of STOL aircraft? If definition is so impossible, then these ought to go too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. perfectly useful and relevant cat. 2. not the same name as previously deleted cat. 3. discussion last year in any case did not have a single reply, and the nominator was the same. 4. If the topic is defineable and notable enough to have WP articles then it is not too amorphous for a cat.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nominator's concerns about it becoming undefinable actually manifest, then it can be used as a parent category and subcategories can be used to more precisely specify membership criteria. -NorsemanII (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt add any value and doesnt actually have any aircraft in it anyhow and not something that is really of help so it is unlikely that STOL is a defining atribute. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[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:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement[edit]
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.
merge both as proposed The procurement articles boggle me anyway, as the article on Canadian procurement alone is nearly as long as the article on the plane itself. Be that as it may, there are only three articles in the main category; the break out into subcategories is unnecesary. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both the procurement articles are children of the main F-35 article so dont really need a separate cat unless we create a procurement tree in the future, which is unlikely. The prototype cat doesnt really help anybody. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[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:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II engines[edit]
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.
keep Why shouldn't we? It's sourceable and relevant. These aren't off the shelf engines that just happen to be fitted to this aircraft, they're complex engines developed particularly for this program, as part of a weapons system. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perfectly sensible, citeable, useful and relevant cat. There is no policy reason why we should not have a cat such as this.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we dont categorise engines by individual use if we did this then Rolls-Royce Merlin would have 42 cats by use, clearly doesnt help and no reason why the F-35 should be a special case. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently somewhat misleading. It's a subcategory of Category:Hydrogen vehicles - which creates the implication that it contains airships powered by hydrogen. What it is, in fact, is airships that used hydrogen as a lifting gas. The proposed name reflects that. It's also awkward - so better names suggested please! The BushrangerOne ping only00:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge with Category: Zeppelins completely unrelated. Several Zepplins used helium. Most hydrogen-lofted airships have nothing to do with Zeppelins. Hyrodgen De Rossier balloons are not even close to being Zeppelins -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep If sub-categorization is the problem, then fix that, not the name. WP:COMMONNAME would seem to clearly favour "hydrogen airships" or even "hydrogen-filled airships", rather than another of those interminable, clunky wiki-neologisms like "Airships using hydrogen gas". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[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:Mid-air collisions of military aircraft[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: The standard naming format for aviation accidents is "involving", so this is proposed to be moved to that format. Nominated as full instead of speedy because this has the potential to modify the scope of the category (from military aircraft only to including military/civilian midairs). The BushrangerOne ping only00:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reorganize/maybe upmerge? By my count nearly half the immediate members of Category: Mid-air collisions involve collisions between military planes and civilian flights, the latter mostly airliners. There is also another subcat of Category:Airliner accidents and incidents involving mid-air collisions; presumably there could be an "involving general aviation" subcat as well, since that's a sizable fraction of the whole (maybe a third). We could go to an all-"involving" subcategorization, in which case lots of articles would show up in two subcategories (e.g. the many airliner-military accidents); or we could have specific subcats for each combination of participants, so that airliner/military and military/military would be in different categories, both of them under both "military accidents" and "mid-air collisions"; or we could simply put all mid-air collisions in a single category and also categorize them in the appropriate "accidents involving" category. It seems to me that arguments could be made for each of these three solutions; I would agree that the current asymmetry between the airliners and the military planes is wrong, but I'm uncertain as to which way to resolve it.Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This still leaves us with airliner and military "involving" categories and a lot of articles that belong in both. I'm not saying that this is a problem; in fact, what I'm looking for is assurance that it isn't a problem. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it seems to me that if it matters whether the collision involved military planes or airliners, it's likely that the military/airliner accidents are of special interest. Or to turn it around, if we're just talking about involvement in a general sense, I fail to see why involvement is relevant, and that everything should go in one big collisions category. Mangoe (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The long-standing consensus is that operations by scheduled air services (airlines) are significant enough to be split out on their own, but that all other aviation accidents should be grouped together. If there's to be a change in that, it needs to be discussed at the project level with regards to all the categories, not piecemeal one cat at a time. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hoping to see some other input on this for several days, but since it does not appear to be forthcoming: I don't understand how the formula you give here helps us out of the problem. If only airliner accidents are separately notable, then the military category should be upmerged, not renamed. If it turns out that the military incidents can be separately categorized, then should there be a separate military/airliner category, or should those accidents fall in both the military and the airliner category? Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[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.
