Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 23

< November 22 November 24 >

November 23

Category:World War II air force films

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:World War II air force films to Category:World War II aviation films
Nominator's rationale: The main category is Aviation films, and there's a World War I aviation films category. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just a question not sure of the convention but would Category:Aviation films of World War II be better? MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Nominated rename would change the scope of the category (is a different category) - i.e., not all WWII air force films are about aviation (e.g., ground operations by air forces) and not all WWII aviation films are about air forces (e.g., naval aviation, rocket aviation). Renaming would also undesirably require overcategorization with subcategories by forces, e.g., Category:World War II films about aviation by air forces, Category:World War II films about aviation by navies, Category:World War II films about aviation by armies. Clearly subdividing WWII films by aviation (air operations), by sailing (naval operations), by driving (vehicle operations), by walking/marching/crawling (infantry operations) etc. is inappropriate and not needed. Target for Today (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Target for Today (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why oc-subcats would be in the least bit necessary. World War II aviation film = goes in Category:World War II aviation films. Category:World War II air force films is needlessly restrictive (and most people will read it as "Air Force", I might add). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 30 November 2011 (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:College football classics

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:College football classics to Category:College football competitions
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to have a separate subcategory for college football competitions that have the word "classic" in them. They are essentially no different from the other items in Category:College football competitions. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subcategory serves no purpose other to lump various college football games together whose sole defining characteristic is that they have the word "classic" in their name. More bizarre handiwork from a user who was indefinitely banned from creating new categories two years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2011 (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:USS Triton (SSRN-586)

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 and rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Triton class submarines to Category:Triton class submarines (1958) (Added by User:The Bushranger on 24 Nov 20:40 UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) looks like overcategorization. The article about the ship should be in Category:Operation Sandblast, not Operation Sandblast being in this category. This leaves only the main article and an article about Edward L. Beach, one of its commanders. The article for this ship is also in an overcategorized Category:Edward L. Beach, Jr., so there is cross-overcategorization of all these articles back and forth in both directions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - The USS Triton is a unique submarine linked to a unique event (Operation Sandblast), a unique individual {Edward L. Beach, Jr.), and a unique engineering achievement with its dual-reactor propulsion plant (e.g., S3G reactor and S4G reactor). The current USS Triton category captures those elements that the new Triton class submarines category does not. The argument of cross-overcategorization and overcategorization is highly overstated and it is a canard.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - given that this exact category was renamed to Category:Triton class submarines literally three days ago. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that, but it only went through a speedy rename process. Its re-creation probably indicates that a user disagrees with the speedy process being used, so I thought it best to have a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • USS Triton (SSRN-586) is in category United States Navy experimental nuclear submarines. There is little point for a "class" for a unique experimental submarine. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A single-ship class is still a class; if ships are to be categoriesed by class (a very well-established cat structure) then single-ship classes need to be categorised as well. That said, though, we don't need one for the ship in addition. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A single-ship class is still a class, perhaps, but does it really added substantially to our overall understanding? Does Long Beach class cruiser add anything to the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) single-ship article? Or Bainbridge class cruiser to the USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) article? Or Truxtun class cruiser to USS Truxtun (CGN-35)? I think not, and neither does the creation of the single-ship class categories. The better and more logical approach is to create single-ship categories as needed and appropriate. See below for my rationale to keeping Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586). Marcd30319 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, there are two different Triton classes of submarines -- USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the British T class submarine. I created a disambiguation page to handle this situation, and I think this disambiguation page handled this duplicative situation well. The creation of a separate category namned Triton class submarine solely around the USS Triton is, to say the least, confusing and redundant, and this new category should be the one to be swiftly deleted because of this fact, not Category USS Triton (SSRN-586). Marcd30319 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, no - USS Triton (SSRN-586) doesn't meet the naming format standards for disambiguation. But, there is an alternative - see my reply to your comment below.
  • Retain -- strongly recommends. I am the contributor who re-created the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586). I was the contributor responsible to helping USS Triton (SSRN-586) article achieve its A-class article status, and as such, I was are the first person on the English Wikipedia to have successfully guided a nuclear power fast attack submarine article to A-class status and consequently received a WikiProject Ships Barnstar for my contribution. I am not the original creator of the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), but I see its potential continued utility. The USS Triton is a unique submarine linked to a unique event (Operation Sandblast), a unique individual {Edward L. Beach, Jr.), and a unique engineering achievement with its dual-reactor propulsion plant (e.g., S3G reactor and S4G reactor). On the other hand, this new Category: Triton class submarine may very well be unnecessary and redundant since there are actually two Triton class submarines -- the USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the British T class submarine. As you can see, this new category does not address or accommodate this British class of submarine. I created disambiguation page (Triton class) which does address this situation and I believe this an appropriate and more consistent approach than a separate category. Therefore not only do I advocate the retention of Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586) as is, but I also advocate the speedy deletion of this new Category:Triton class submarine in light of the fact that the Triton class disambiguation page does the same job while accommodating the British T class submarine article. I also recommend that rather than go through this rapid deletion process, in the future, we leverage the talk pages of the affected article, category, etc., to discuss the situation more fully among the contributors who actually created the relevant article, category or disambiguation page. After all, this is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, an alternative solution is already in progress - Category:Triton class submarines is currently at speedy-renaming to Category:Triton class submarines (1958), which is the fomrmat that is used when ship classes have to be disambiguated, and should solve the ambiguity problem nicely. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is there not a category for single ships called Category:Categories named after ships? Marcd30319 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...Which I now see you opposed. Oy vey. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This renaming of the Triton class submarine category was initiated because of the British T class submarine situation which was accommodated by Triton class disambiguation page. So, in order to contort this discussion into the direction that the administrator wants, we are not only going through the speedy deletion of a perfectly utilitarian USS Triton category while the ignoring of an equally utilitarian disambiguation page, but we must also go through renaming of the Triton class submarine category that did not adequately address the British T class submarine situation when it was initially created. I happen to belive in economy of effort, and I think this total process to be a needless expediture of effort to no great purpose. Look, I know how things work and how Wiki-admin types will almost always get their way but as the contributor who actually guided USS Triton (SSRN-586) to its A-class status, I would hope for a more collaborative approach. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) as not conforming to any established category tree and also not as per the conventional form of disambiguating ship classes. Rename Category:Triton class submarines to Category:Triton class submarines (1958) per the standard form of disambiguating ship-by-class categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This renaming of the Triton class submarine category was initiated because of the British T class submarine situation which was accommodated by Triton class disambiguation page but not by this new Triton class submarine category as initially created. So, we are not only going through the speedy deletion of a perfectly utilitarian USS Triton category while the ignoring of an equally utilitarian disambiguation page, but we must also go through renaming process for this new Triton class submarine category that did not adequately address the British T class submarine situation when it was initially created. I happen to believe in economy of effort, and I think this total process to be a needless expediture of effort to no great purpose. Look, forgive my cynicism, but I know how things work, and I also know how Wiki-admin will almost always get their way, but as the contributor who actually guided USS Triton (SSRN-586) to its A-class status, I would hope for a more collaborative approach. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addressing your comment here - you are mistaken there; the original Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) category had been emptied and tagged for C1 speedy deletion as empty, when I found it, and rescued it by turning it into the class category. Your comment there that "the original USS Triton category and disambiguation page (Triton class) adequately addressed the British T class submarine situation." is, unfortunately, not validated by the facts - the existence of a disambiguation page, and its contents, are irrelevant to disambiguating categories, ships-by-class categories are disambiguated by launch date and/or navy, not by having one refer to the individual ship that the class consists of. (In addition, this is not speedy deletion.) - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, for the sake of examination, let's assume that everything in the above is true, particularly the fact that the original USS Triton category was empty. Well, the current, newly-reconstituted USS Triton category is now re-populated, and the original raison d'etre for the rescue mission (i.e., the creation single-ship category - Triton class submarines) is now no longer valid. In fact, the Triton class submarines category only references to the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article while the current, newly-reconstituted USS Triton category not only refers to the USS Triton but also articles on Operation Sandblast, Edward L. Beach, Jr., the S3G reactor, and the S4G reactor, all uniquely associated with the submarine USS Triton. Also, while examining the Category:Categories named after ships page, I note that every U.S. naval (USS) single-ship category has been flagged for deletion, but no other single-ship categories are so flagged for deletion. While the case can be made that the other single-ship categories are well populated with cross-referenced articles and media, and the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) and USS Nevada (BB-36) single-ship categories are not so populated, the same cannot be said with the USS Triton single-ship category. Finally, regarding the Triton class itself, although three to seven additional units were considered, the only ship that was ever authorized for construction was the USS Triton itself. In fact, several units of the proposed USS Permit (SSGN-596) class of second-generation nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines were actually authorized and construction begun, but following the cancellation of the Regulus II cruise missile program, these boats were re-authorized as Thresher-class second-generation nuclear-powered submarines. So, Triton was a single ship, like other first-generation U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarines like the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), USS Seawolf (SSN-575), and USS Halibut (SSGN-587), rather than series production first-generation nuke boats like the Skate-class submarines. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After having similar cats pointed out to me by Ed, I'm striking my delete !vote for the main category being discussed here. I, personally, believe that it (and the USS Nautilus category he pointed out as precedent) should be at Foobar class submarines (date if necessary) categories, a la Category:Bainbridge class cruisers (for another single-ship class with additional information), but I won't oppose a !keep here. That said the class cat needs to be disambiguated and/or merged. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) then Category:Operation Sandblast should be deleted because it duplicates the former. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 8 December 2011 (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:United States Navy schooners

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 all, in view of majority support for a new standard. (Non-admin closure.) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy schooners to Category:Schooners of the United States Navy
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy ketchs to Category:Ketches of the United States Navy
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy brigs to Category:Brigs of the United States Navy
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy brigantines to Category:Brigantines of the United States Navy
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy nuclear ships to Category:Nuclear ships of the United States Navy
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy cutters to Category:Cutters of the United States Navy
Propose renaming Category:United States Navy dispatch boats to Category:Dispatch boats of the United States Navy
Nominator's rationale: Objected speedy on the basis that a standard naming pattern hasn't been established - which is untrue. The vast majority of sub-sub categories of Category:Ships by navy use "X of Y" naming; the only holdouts (outside of a few ships of the line) reside in the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and United States Navy categories, likely only because they were created first before the standard pattern was established. In addition, for schooners, brigs, brigantines, and nuclear-powered ships, the parent by-type categories (Category:Brigs, for instance) universally use "X of Y" naming. "X of Y" does have its faults, yes, but "Y X" has its own, and given that the overwhelming majority of ships-by-navy use "X of Y", there's no reason not to improve Wikipedia's appearance and professionalism through standardisation. The Bushranger One ping only 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I decided to count to be sure. Counting only subcategories of the by-navy subcategories of Category:Ships by navy, and only counting categories dedicated to ships types (vs. individual classes, names, tranferred ships), and including these here, the score is: X of Y:, 548, Y X: 50 (22 of which are USN subcats), indicating a very clear standard established using X of Y. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. We have a clear pattern for every other navy and country category of this kind, and the USN should not be treated any differently.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – a standard naming pattern has been established, muddied somewhat by the Royal Navy. Occuli (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:commonname. For instance the US Navy ship names all start with USS. ie uses the Y X format. It is claimed that the standard format has been established but there has been no general discussion of the subject. (Many of the categories have been speedy changed to the X of Y without discussion). Also past discussions have shown that regional variations are permissable and at the moment there are many US Navy categories that use the Y X format, so it would be permissable to use it for these categories. In particular Category:Cutters of the United States Navy seems ambiguous and "Dispatch boats of the United States Navy" looks like an order. Cjc13 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is the standard format now, it appears to me. No reason to go backwards on this work that's being done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think that a standard should be established merely by numbers but by discussion. There appears to have been no discussion about which standard format to use and no reason has been given for why the X of Y format might be better. Consistency can be achieved by using the Y X format which is used in other US Navy categories and which is consistent with WP:commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it isn't. "USS" prefixing the ship names is irrelevant, as nobody says "USS Destroyers" or "USS battleships", nor "USS Foo class cruisers". "USS" applies to ship names, not ship types The common term used is "destroyers of the United States Navy" etc. And (as pointed out elsewhere) consensus can arise from normal editing as well as discussion, and the normal editing here has overwhelmingly established X of Y. WP:ENGVAR doesn't apply here; the only reason so many USN cats are in "Y X" format, I'd wager, is because they are old, created back in the Wild Wild Wiki days. Yes, there are some cases where "Y X" names may be slightly clearer, but the amount of unclearness is not as much as the amount of unencylopedic appearance having one/a few cats in a totally different format from the entire rest of the tree produces. "X of Y" is a much clearer format in the vast majority of cases, and looks much better and more professional; no reasonable person is going to think a category named "Dispatch boats of the United States Navy" refers to an order to dispatch boats. - The Bushranger One ping only20:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because something is old does not mean it is wrong. Cjc13 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it doesn't, but together with the other reasons User:The Bushranger provides, a strong case for renaming has been made out, regardless of how recent or old the category name is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMO the case is weak and ignores WP:commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I wouldn't say it ignores it, but there does have to be a balance between the various competing principles, one of which could be WP:COMMONNAME. The other principles set out have to be considered as well, though, and I think on balance the proposed approach is a good one. It's not like it is selecting a naming scheme that is never used or grossly alien to the area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname This is (or should be) the new standard. It is less important for countries witha one word name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is concerning a navy not a country. The World War categories, such as Category:World War II naval ships show that Y X format can be used where Y is more than one word. Cjc13 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Schooner is also a type of glass, particularly in Britain and Australia so if there is a name change some form of disambiguation may be needed, see Schooner (disambiguation). Cjc13 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2011 (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:Albums recorded in Austin

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 as nominated for now; a new discussion to consider deletion or reworking these in accordance with User:Occuli's suggestion is probably in order, though. This close is without prejudice to a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Albums recorded in Austin to Category:Albums recorded in Austin, Texas
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternately, delete as non-defining. Certainly, the recording location of some albums is notable: famous studios (e.g. Abbey Road) or famous live venues and concert halls (e.g. Carnegie Hall), but no one would ever say, "Album X? Oh, that was the one recorded in Austin, Texas, right? Yeah, I love Album X!" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, the recordig city does not define the record. Hekerui (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. I was simply trying to expand Category:Albums recorded in the United States by city, which is also related to Category:Live albums recorded in the United States. Not sure why some cities are more important than others, but if contributors feel the category is irrelevant I won't be offended. Please keep in mind that the parent categories here could be greatly expanded, combined, etc. (live album by country/city, albums by recording location, etc.) Also, as categories are created for specific venues (concert halls OR studios), these city categories will become useful. Subcategories for Austin might include "Albums recorded at Stubb's BBQ", "Albums recorded at Austin City Limits", "Albums recorded at Emo's", etc. similar to subcategories seen for other cities. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to complicate things, but know that I also created categories for Houston, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and Seattle with the intent to create more. I will hold off from doing so if contributors find these categories are not useful. Again, just keep in mind that similar categories exist for NYC, Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc. and I don't see why these are more important than other cities. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that anyone is saying those other locations are more important. It is common for a category to be nominated without consideration of the fact that similar categories exist. The purpose of the discussion here is to address that and try to make a consensus decision after considering all of the facts. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand, and I am by no means offended that the category was nominated. I genuinely thought I was just doing a favor by categorizing articles in a manner similar to what already existed. I just wanted to acknowledge which categories existed previously and which ones I created. I will hold off creating additional categories for live venues or cities until this discussion has ended. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to establish this bigger scheme. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider whether to rename to Category:Live albums recorded in Austin (and discard the studio ones). If we have a live album recorded at X, then X seems to me to be defining. There are 2 sessions albums in the category for which it seems to me that Austin is tangential (and indeed the articles don't mention Austin except in their title). Occuli (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (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.

Critics

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: no consensus to delete. There seems to be a desire to judge these individually, so feel free to relist them one at a time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Adventism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Christian Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Mormonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of religions or philosophies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Sōka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Objectivism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

for the same reasons outlined for deleting Critics of the LaRouche Movement, wherein Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo was also referenced -- i.e. as a non-notable, somewhat subjective intersection. Should have been proposed sooner, I know; sorry for the delay. Quis separabit? 14:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RATIONALE UPDATED: Propose deletion of all the above related categories, added at this time in the interest of inclusion, fairness and consistency, in light of comments by T. Anthony and Good Ol’factory. I hold to my previous comment that these are non-notable, subjective and marginal intersections (i.e. there are, to my knowledge, no categories such as, say, Critics of Christianity, Critics of Islam, Critics of Roman Catholicism, Critics of Eastern Catholicism, etc.) No offense to anybody, just trying to explain my rationale, but I am sure there are others who could do so more encyclopaedically. Also, singling out categories (i.e. Critics of the LaRouche Movement and Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo) piecemeal, one by one makes no sense. Better to do all at once, I think. Quis separabit? 16:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I was doing a spate of those as it seemed to be "a thing" or relevant or whatever, but I'm not invested in it. If it has merit good, if not also okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a whole ton of these at Category:Critics of religions or philosophies. For some included in some of these categories, it is probably the main reason they are notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Creators of categories added on today have all been notified. Quis separabit? 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Category:Critics of Mormonism omitted? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops my bad. I didn't see that one. Added it. Quis separabit? 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but these categories should be for people who have made a point of seeking to undermine the core beleifs, not those who have made some bland crticism of them (which would be non-defining). The converse is the academic discipline of apologetics. If I merely say that the Latter Day Saints are wrong in theri beliefs, that is a mere statement of my beliefs and non-defining. On the other hand, if I write a book (or series of books) seeking to demolish the basis of theri beliefs, it is clearly defining and should have a category. Perhaps "critics" is not the best word, but it is the one WP came up with in previous debates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your defense is somewhat provisional (pardon the expression) or conditional, if you will, with caveats in your analysis, so shouldn't each category be explored individually? Some are almost unpopulated. And if the term "Critics" is not right, then a name change for those categories which deserve to remain should be explored. Category:Critics of Judaism really does not sound very encyclopaedic, for example. What about just keeping Category:Critics of religions or philosophies?? Quis separabit? 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider one by one. Subjects like Abner of Burgos or Gerry Armstrong (activist) derive their notability entirely from their work in opposition to a religion or philosophy. This cannot be handled in a blanket manner.- choster (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well like I said, let's just keep Category:Critics of religions or philosophies. Quis separabit? 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - The problem is that all philosophers are critics of the philosophies that came before them. Having a "Critics of philosophies" is just not useful or possible. Perhaps if the day comes that there are a bunch of categories like "Critics of Aristotelianism" or "Critics of Hegelianism" etcetera then maybe well have something. The critics of religions do seem to justify having a supracategory though.Greg Bard (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to where?? Quis separabit? 20:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Critics of religions or philosophies since it useful for other templates like Template:Criticism of religion which has an increasing number of notable critics list. The category would be a better way of organizing with out constant debates over who is notable and how long to keep the list. --Alatari (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2011 (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:Noble jurisdictions

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 all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Noble jurisdictions to Category:Titles of nobility
Nominator's rationale: and all sub-categories using "noble jurisdictions" to similar titles. These categories are being used for titles of nobility that do not bestow a jurisdiction on the holder. If the categories are not renamed then all the titles that do not bestow a jurisdiction would have to be removed from the category, leaving just the medieval jurisdictions where the noble with that title held jurisdiction over the territory named. DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resort per nom, remove titles that never had a jurisdiction attached. (since some titles once had jurisdictions attached, those should remain, even if the jurisdictions have since been eliminated) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is about titles, not jurisdictions. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (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.

American nobility

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 nom. (Processing will be delayed until Category:Nobility of the Americas is renamed. ) Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American nobility to Category:Nobility of the Americas
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category and the suggested target category are being used for the same purpose: to house nobility from the Americas. Categories starting "American ..." typically refer to people from the United States. As there is no nobility of the United States, and the grammar and meaning of the target category is clearer, the American nobility category should be emptied into the Nobility of the Americas category and deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "American" pretty much always means "United Statesian" when used as an adjective for categories, and these categories are clearly duplicates. The target category has a clearer name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Category:American nobility might need a better name (and parent Category:Nobility by nation is badly misnamed), but these are two entirely seperate category trees being discussed here - one in the Category:Nobility by nation tree, and the other the Category:Noble jurisdictions tree as mentioned in the nom above. Merging them will create a nasty mess. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also this CfD. If that is renamed, this could be moved to the vacated Category:Nobility of the Americas title starting a move to "X of Y" for that tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps this discussion should be delayed until the other one is completed. Then it would be a lot clearer where to go. This appears to be more complicated than first meets the eye. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if American is taken as USA, some USA-ian people have become nobles, but not of the USofA. Ofcourse, American could just mean the Americas... in which case there are a rather lot of them. Indeed some titles in the British House of Lords seems to be attached to territories named in Canada. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:North American nobility or Category:South American nobility or Category:Oceanian nobility‎. This covers three areas that are best not combined. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There are few noble titles in the the Americas, so that it is appropriate to combine them into one category. However there are two types of articles that require differnet treatment. There are articles on the titles - one per dukedom, barony, etc; and one with the biographies of holders. The first should perhaps be Category:Noble titles in the Americas and the latter "nobility of the Americas". In each case a head note will be needed distinguishing the scope of the two, both of which may need to be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Category:Nobility by nation is organized by continent with the only exception being for North and South America. So splitting should be no disucssion required. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2011 (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:Hydroelectric power companies in the United Kingdom

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: Typo creation; deleted by request of sole creator and author. The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named category, and should have been Category:Hydroelectric power companies of the United Kingdom. Simply delete. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2011 (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:Aviators killed in shootdowns

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 no opposition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aviators killed in shootdowns to Category:Aviators killed by being shot down
Nominator's rationale: More grammatically correct, and a better match for parent Category:Shot-down aviators and similar Category:Military personnel killed by friendly fire‎. The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 23 November 2011 (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:United States Football League flagship radio stations

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) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:United States Football League flagship radio stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Long-defunct sports league that was broadcast on these stations for three seasons in the 1980s. Neither the league's page or United States Football League on the radio mention "flagship" station status in any way, and I don't believe that this is defining for most, if any, of the stations categorised here. The Bushranger One ping only 08:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-defining. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2011 (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:Atlantic Championship drivers

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Royalbroil 04:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Atlantic Championship drivers to Category:Formula Atlantic drivers
Propose renaming Category:Atlantic Championship seasons to Category:Formula Atlantic seasons
Nominator's rationale: While the main article for this racing series is at Atlantic Championship, that is merely the most recent name for the series, which has also been known as "Champ Car Atlantic" and "Toyota Atlantic" among others. "Formula Atlantic" is the name of the parent cat, however, and is the most widely recognised "generic" name of the series; I believe the subcats of Category:Formula Atlantic should follow its lead, at least until and unless the currently-defunct series is successfully revived The Bushranger One ping only 08:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support The only thing I'm worried about is the category names being misconstrued to refer to participants or seasons of amateur (SCCA) Formula Atlantic competition. -Drdisque (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that's (IIRC) "Formula Atlantics" (admittedly a small difference) and, more importantly, I believe insufficently notable to ever merit categories here, so... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Formula Atlantic and the Atlantic Championship are two separate things. Formula Atlantic was a set of rules used in several championships around the world, including the Atlantic Championship in North America. There's not much use in a category for drivers of a certain formula regardless of series (note that Category:Formula Three drivers is divided up by championship). I've gone ahead and created a proper category tree for the Atlantic Championship, which may have been the source of the confusion. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this can be withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:13, 30 November 2011 (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:Wikipedian sex workers

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian sex workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Hoax/fake content (also WP:OVERCAT junk) – contains no genuine material. Unnecessary "adult themed" innuendo which only aims to defile Wikipedia than be an asset. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 06:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - on what basis do you argue that this is a "hoax", given that this is a category to which users generally add themselves?
  • Named members have been members of other deleted cats that were fake. There's a pattern. They make joke cats of no value. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 04:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you contact these people or even the creator of the category? It's not like Drmies (talk · contribs) is this evil vandal that can't listen to reason. I have to agree that I seriously doubt that any of the current members are actually sex-workers but then the worst I can say about this category is that it should be considered as empty and deleted on those grounds. If used in good faith, it's as reasonable category as any in Category:Wikipedians by profession but this just shows how silly they all are given that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. In the end, this is more of a behaviour issue than a content issue so CfD is ill-equipped to solve it. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even assuming this category was not a joke, the goal of user categories is to group users to better find someone for collaboration purposes. What, exactly, would such users in this category be able to contribute, keeping in mind our policy against original research? VegaDark (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it obvious that the answer to that question is "collaborating on articles related to prostitution and sex-workers"? And why are you treating this differently than Category:Wikipedian nurses? I happen to find both categories silly but I don't see why they should be treated differently. They have limited value in terms of collaboration, they carry utterly unverifiable information and they are prone to abuse. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But wouldn't their experience be original research? I'm not necessarily treating this differently than other occupations. I'd question the value for each Wikipedian occupation category for the same concern. Sure, someone in the field is likely to be more knowledgeable, but in the end if they are going to make a change it should be based off of a published source, not their own personal experience. I think a better approach to this would be to group everyone interested in a particular field and give them a category - for instance, Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on nursing (field) topics or something similar. You could be a plumber and still be really interested in collaborating on topics relating to nursing, or you could be an actual nurse and have no interest at all in that area of the encyclopedia. I think that's a better format if the actual goal is collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Amen to that but I'm willing to bet that Category:Wikipedian physicians would be treated with a lot more reverence. Pichpich (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pichpich, I think you're missing the point - as far as I can tell this category was created as a gag, not as a category for those "in the business" as it were. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense category. Hekerui (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2011 (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:Burials at the Mount of Olives (Jewish)

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 to Category:Burials at the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives (Jewish) to Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives
Nominator's rationale: Have no idea what "Jewish" is doing here.. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy rename via a reversed-from-the-norm C2B. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at the Church of Maria Magdalene would be a subcat of Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives under the proposed changes, which would make the categorization scheme simpler and remove the extraneous awkward "Jewish."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/suggestion. For clarity, maybe it should be Category:Burials at the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives. Unless this particular cemetery has a proper name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Burials at the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives GO's suggestion reflects the organization of the subject on the corresponding page in the Hebrew Wikipedia. The equivalent Mount of Olives article shows a map that references the major portion of the site as the "Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives" (my translation from Hebrew). There is an article for the cemetery itself, which in English would be an the corresponding article for this category and would provide additional context above and beyond the material included in the present English language article. Alansohn (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Alansohn and GO'f suggest. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish someone would explain why "Jewish" is necessary, but whatever.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a separate cemetery on the Mount of Olives which is the Jewish cemetery. It's just a choice of whether we want a lot of articles in an undifferentiated head article (Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives), or whether we want that category to be a container category for subcategories for each of the individual cemeteries on the Mount. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2011 (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:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC that also has a rather nebulously defined area - "the Islands", for most people, won't translate as "Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket". Also this is a rather broad area covering a nice chunk of Mass - best merged into the parent cat. The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC
Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Near" is too nebulous. The state should be a good enough basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2011 (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:Anachem Award Recipients

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anachem Award Recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#AWARD, this looks like overcategorization. There is no article about the award, Anachem Award. The subject is already dealt with by a template, which is probably sufficient for a borderline non-notable award. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete overcategorization per nomination, the name is not even found on the page the attached template redirects to. Hekerui (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_23&oldid=1151013889"