Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 19

< July 18	July 20 >

July 19[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.

The result of the discussion was: delete.-Wafulz (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attack therapy[edit]

Delete - This category has only one article besides its main article, along with a sub-category, Category:Large Group Awareness Training, which I believe should not be there in the first place as not all such trainings are forms of Attack therapy. That points to my other concern, that it lends itself to inappropriate use, and is thus not well suited as a Category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Should actually be used in more articles, not less. Clearly defined with numerous cites to WP:RS/WP:V sources in the main article Attack therapy itself - and category placement can easily be limited to subject matter identified as such in multiple reliable sources. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be very clear about what concerns me here. I'm not contesting the concept of Attack therapy, nor would I take issue with describing the sort of thing that has gone on at Synanon or EST as "Attack therapy". That issue can be discussed in articles about those subjects, with the necessary citations in support of that description. Categories, on the other hand -- because their contents can't be watchlisted like articles -- are more susceptible to misuse or even abuse (especially when they involve negative qualities) -- so there's a higher bar for what's acceptable. And here's the thing: even though you are obviously more knowledgable on this subject than the average person, that still didn't prevent you from mis-applying this category to the entire Category:Large Group Awareness Training -- which is utterly inappropriate for much of what comes under that heading. I considered removing it, but left it there so that other editors could see for themselves why I feel this category is problematic. Cgingold (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't mean by adding the category to Category:Large Group Awareness Training, that all Large Group Awareness Training was Attack therapy, merely that the two were very closely related. However I agree with your rationale - perhaps for the time being it is best to simply let the article stand alone and do without the category. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cgingold (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As initial category creator I tagged it with {{db-author}}. Cirt (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2008 (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:Evolution in popular culture and entertainment[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.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both to Category:Evolution in popular culture and Category:Prehistoric life in popular culture to conform with all of the other sub-cats of Category:In popular culture. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Keep it inline with the other "in popular culture" cats. So basically, "per nom." :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2008 (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:Law enforcement workers[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.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2008 July 25. Kbdank71 13:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Law enforcement workers to Category:Law enforcement occupations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Everything related to a career specialisation is now categorised under Occupations. It seems that no category relating to employment and specialisations has the word "worker" in it; the exceptions are Category:Sex workers and the nominee. "Workers" stands out, and ought to be renamed to follow this very large category's naming convention. It essentially means the same thing but sounds more formal and structured. — Skittleys (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (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:Scientific and engineering occupations[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.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2008 July 25. Kbdank71 13:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scientific and engineering occupations to Category:Science and engineering occupations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Science" is broader than "Scientific". With the rename, social science-related occupations can be moved here. This is actually part of a proposal to restructure the science-related occupations so that they are all encompassed in one category instead of being distributed throughout Category:Occupations. Please see both the proposal and a relevant CfM for more details. — Skittleys (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's another current CFD that might be related: Types of scientist by nationality. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (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:Life, physical, and social science occupations[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.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Life, physical, and social science occupations to Category:Science occupations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundant. Life, physical + social = ALL sciences, and Science occupations exists. With just this change, Science occupations would need to be moved up one level (becoming a direct descendant of Occupations) and all of the nominated category's subcats and articles would be moved to Science occupations. However, this is actually part of a proposal to restructure the science-related occupations under Scientific and engineering occupations; please see the proposal for details and a more organised explanation of where these categories would end up. — Skittleys (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - You beat me to it on this one (I spotted this category last week, but hadn't gotten around to it). Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2008 (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:Nationalist terrorism[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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. The nominator puts forth an amazingly strong argument that this term is not well defined, either on the category page, or in the article Nationalist terrorism (which has its own set of problems), especially when related to the organizations contained therein, and that this category does seem to circumvent the deletion of Category:Terrorist organizations, which was deleted for a very good reason. The arguments to keep are mainly from the category's creator, who readily admits that this is indeed a POV category, and would be willing to delete this if other similar POV categories are also removed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument to keep (especially when it's POV). . Kbdank71 14:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The cat created today is not really well defined. The main article Nationalist terrorism covers such a broad concept that it is largely overlapping with Category:Terrorism. The way the category has been populated, it appears its a way to circumvent the cfds of Category:Terrorist organizations and the establishment of the Category:Organizations designated as terrorist compromise. The article Nationalist terrorism is seemingly OR, and could use an AfD. Soman (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep: As are 90% the Category:Terrorism subcategories. In fact, this main category defines itself "This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism." I fully support this deletion if other similar POV categories are also removed (ie. everything but "organizations designated as terrorist by XXX" -- even that one should probably go too -- and Category:Fugitives wanted on terrorism charges) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think we would need to look at Category:Terrorism subcategories at large as well. Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist should be the only ones to categorize organizations. Thats the only way I interpret the deletion of Category:Terrorist organizations. --Soman (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Category:Terrorists continues to exist, so individuals could still be added to Category:Nationalist terrorism? This is not about organizations, it's about the inherently POV nature of the word terrorism. Classifying an organization, a person or an action as terrorist/terrorism is always going to be POV, so it either needs to be applied fully to everyone that might fit, or not to anyone. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the threat of libel. To my knowledge, we don't categorize people as murderers or thieves unless they have been legally convicted or have plead guilty. I don't see why any different rules would apply to terrorism. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, WP:WTA suggests "In an article the words [terrorism/terrorist] should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article." Unless the category is "designated as terrorism/ist by XXX" it's unattributed and is effectively narrative voice. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep As long as there is a valid article, there is a valid reason for this catgory. Dumping everything into higher parent categories (or ever longer articles) does not help navigate or find things (the reasons why categories exist), but merely confuses the reader. Hmains (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not every article has a category attached to it. I do not recommend dumping all articles in higher categories. Rather those articles that are eligble to be categorized as "organizations designated as terrorist" are already categorized there. Organisations that were never designated as terrorists should not be included in any terrorism subcat, that is the concrete outcome of past cfds. --Soman (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree (though I'd suggest "orgs designated as terrorist by XXX" is the only way to attribute) but why does this only apply to organizations, not individuals and events? How is it NPOV to avoid saying group X is terrorist, but categorize its individual members and its actions as terrorist actions? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, at present there are only two types of articles in this category. The main article nationalist terrorism and various organisations. If the organisations are removed, then what will be the use of the category? Is there any resonable scope for population the category in a meaningful way? If it was to be populated by individuals, there would be no improvement. I think deletion is the reasonable option. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment What about the other sub-categories of Category:Terrorism by genre? What about Category:Terrorist_incidents? Category:Terrorism_victims? Category:Terrorists? All of these categories have the same problem of containing unattributed words to avoid. All of them would be empty if incidents, organizations, and individuals were removed. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment, i think by genre categorization is unsuitable for the subject. In this particular case, the term 'nationalist' is defined so broadly that the category becomes largely superflous to the main category terrorism. I think all the categories you mention have inclusion problems. But you still haven't responded to my previous question, namely how you'd like this particular category (nationalist terrorism) be populated? --Soman (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: By the definition in Nationalist terrorism and the category definition of Category:Terrorism. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (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:World War I materiel[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.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War I materiel to Category:World War I military equipment

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match all the other military equipment categories such as those in Category:Military equipment by era. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and Suggest including Category:German materiel of World War I in this nomination. --Eliyak T·C 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom based on the contents of the category. Hmains (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Title should reflect content. Dimadick (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2008 (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:Detoxification methods[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.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Detoxification. Kbdank71 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a fundamentally small category; see WP:OC#SMALL. I've mentioned all of these in the detoxification article under the alternative medicine section, and I think that is enough. II | (t - c) 10:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm really not seeing any problem here - 6 articles is on the smallish side, but still perfectly respectable. If there were only 2 articles I could see your concern. Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concern is that no more will be added. All those articles are now reflected in the detoxification article, so a category is superflous. II | (t - c) 13:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Category:Detoxification and add the article Detoxification and its sub-articles (+ perhaps others). An article on some aspect of Detoxification should be categorised into a category related to Detoxification. Occuli (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think either of you realize how minor detoxification methods are in alt. med. The detoxification article has only a small subsection on its use in alt. med. All of the articles are stubs because there are few reliable sources covering them. It would be nice to cut this out so we can make room for much larger and more important categories in herbalism, ayurvedic medicine, and other areas. II | (t - c) 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the related articles I've looked at are not stubs; and there is plenty of room for other categories. I'm surprised to hear that Alcohol detoxification or Drug detoxification are minor topics for which reliable references are not available. (Neither of these is categorised under a detox category, which is unsatisfactory.) Occuli (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category is a subarticle of alternative medicine, and thus it focuses exclusively on alt. med. detoxification. Adding drug and alcohol detoxification is likely to be confusing. But the real thing is that when you've got all the information together in one article, there is no need for a category. Detoxification will list drug detox, alcohol detox, and all the alt. med detoxes. Why a category then? The preceding question is not rhetorical; please answer it. If someone looks at snake-stones, a link to detoxification in the lead will immediately lead them back to the main article, where every single detox method is listed. So why is a category necessary? Categories are suited for areas where this is not likely since the topics are connected, but not likely to be mentioned in their articles, such as people, organizations, organisms, related chemicals or drugs, ect. These types of areas have massive growth potential, while detox methods is done at 6, 8 if you include drug and alcohol detox. II | (t - c) 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the intro to Wikipedia:Categorization - any article should be categorised under its 'defining characteristics'. An article on detox in alt.med should be categorised in some way under both alt.med and detox (which could be done via 2 categories or 1, which should then be "Detoxification (methods) in alternative medicine" per below, as there are detox methods mentioned in the article and by Stevenfruitsmaak below which are not in alt.med). Occuli (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and recategorise I agree with Occuli's suggestion: all these related articles should be categorised together, and they need a more appropriate title. However, I suggest this category be renamed "Detoxification methods in alternative medicine" with the parents "Alternative medicine" and "Detoxification". The latter would also need to be created and should also include the other relevant articles (Alcohol detoxification, etc.) — Skittleys (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and populate. If you don't want to add alt. med, a mention somewhere (on the category page, or in a new category) would be useful. What about articles like Acupuncture detoxification, Purification Rundown etc.? I don't see why new articles couldn't be added in the future. Of course they could go in an article, but don't we have other categories who's members are all mentioned in an overview article? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created the new category, could use help fixing up loose ends. Would like to close this so I can feel comfortable renaming Category:Detoxification methods to something like Category:Alternative detoxification. II | (t - c) 18:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Detoxification. --Una Smith (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2008 (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.

Categories:Guatemalans by ethnic descent[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.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: for clarity and as per precedent Mayumashu (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep all. Although the Booian-Chileans scheme is vague in terms of the people it includes, it is a better alternative to the proposed scheme. "Descent" means one thing and one thing only - anyone with any ancestor. The use of this term will (because some people around here know english) lead to the inclusion of anyone with any ancestor even if the ancestor goes back 500 years. Thus, the proposed scheme leads to an undefining categorization.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 10:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booian-Fooians, as it s used in American English, does not define a limited amount of ethnicity or number of generations removed from em/immigrating - what the two naming patterns describe is the same; what differs, only, is the degree of clarity in what is meant Mayumashu (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and much recent precedence. Category:Afro-Guatemalans says "Black guatemalans of African, Garifuna, afromestizo, zambo, Creole, afrocaribbean, or other black descent" which sounds like "Guatemalans of Black African descent" to me. Category:Belgian-Guatemalans - 'this page lists Guatemalan citizens of Belgian origin or descent'. The distinction to which Brewcrewer refers seems to be imaginary. Occuli (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2008 (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:Images of propeller 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We haven't been categorizing airplanes by type of propulsion. We've been categorizing by manufacturer instead. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Same as below. Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cross-categorization is not a bad thing, aircraft are categorized in such a manner in any case. 70.55.86.51 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the two types of categories that cross-categorized are "type" of airplane and "manufacturer" of airplane. Add another, as in "action" (landing, taking off...) and it becomes too much to do. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 04:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any reason these can not be moved to commons? In any case, did someone empty the categories improperly? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. An image should be categorised by defining characteristics. I am sure that jet/propeller/glider (propellor?) are defining characteristics (as is manufacturer). Occuli (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment Categorizing airplanes by jet/propeller/glider doesn't help those of us in the aviation wikiprojects that work with articles specific to airplanes. When we need a picture of a certain type of airplane we think of the type of airplane and the manufacturer of the airplane. These two characteristics imply the type of engine the plane uses. "Jet" airplane, and "propellor" airplane are not terms used by aviation enthusiasts or the folks working in WP:AIRCRAFT. It would be a good idea to categorize the pictures this way if we had an article on Propellor aircraft. But we don't. What we do have are articles on the different manufacturers of these aircraft (Boeing, Beechcraft, Piper), so it makes very much sense to align with these existing naming schemes. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 19:32, 21 July 2008 (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:Images of multiengine propeller 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. As of right now, there is only one image in this category, which is not part of any accepted or established scheme, and therefore defeats the purpose of a category. Feel free to recreate this if/when other multiengine propeller aircraft images are found/uploaded. Kbdank71 13:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: We haven't been categorizing airplanes by number of engines. All multi-engine propeller aircraft will be categorized as "Images of airplanes" E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was hoping to view the photos to help evaluate the category, but they've already been removed - contrary to the clear instructions on the CFD notice. Please be good enough to restore them. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one photo in the category; it would be difficult to locate that item. Looking at the structure of categories as they stand will give those interested an idea of the different ways to go about this. Thanks E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've been good. I put a the photo back. Having this photo really won't help paint a complete picture though. But, I've done as you asked. It's the only one I found so please use it to make your appraisal. Cheers E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your replies (including my talk page). Surely you don't mean to say that there was only ever one photo (of a plane landing) among all four of these categories? Were they all removed a month ago? Cgingold (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do mean there was a picture put in the one category. I had started working with lots of airplane images and creating new categories and an editor came in and made the "action" categories and put the picture in it. I never heard from this editor and I don't think he was interested in collaborating; I think my work caught his attention. Anyhow, the way the pictures are being categorized are by manufacturer and type. They were set up this way before I started and before this other editor came in. No one has filled these action categories; they've remained empty for a month now. I'm requesting their deletion for this reason and because it doesn't work with the "type" and "manufacturer" scenario of categorization. Cheers E_dog95'^{Hi '} 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. A decidedly strange situation. Cgingold (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cross-categorization is not a bad thing, aircraft are categorized in such a manner in any case. It can be populated by other images. 70.55.86.51 (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any reason these can not be moved to commons? In any case, did someone empty the categories improperly? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - If these photos were only ever going to be used in order to depict the specific aircraft there would be a good case for only sorting them according to the agreed-on categorization scheme. But it seems to me that these general descriptive categories might serve a useful function when photos are sought for other purposes, where generic photos of aircraft doing various things are what's wanted. Cgingold (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge to Category:Images of propeller aircraft. Occuli (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB Image:102 0250.jpg was in this cat, rm by E_dog95. I've put it back. Occuli (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One other item that's significant is that trying to categorize these pictures by "landing" or "taking off" is difficult because it is frequently hard to tell whether the airplane is climbing or descending. At any rate, I've spent time creating categories and populating them in organized fashion. The editor that drove by and made these few categories has, well, driven by...If he is sharp enough to distinguish pictures of airplanes landing or taking off (that he hasn't himself taken) then he should follow thru and categorize the images. I started this project because I had a need for a specific airplane image. I have worked with airplane articles and when I need one, I'm thinking of the type of airplane, not what it is doing. So I looked in the airplane images category and I was shocked to find less than twenty items. That is when I went to work. I will finish this categorization project, but it won't include categorizing these images by "landing" or "taking off" or "propeller". I created a scheme and it works well. I have put thought into this. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to Image:102 0250.jpg... Without having seen the category it's in at the moment, what is this airplane doing? Taking off? Or performing a go-around? A person can't tell sometimes without having been there & taken the photo. It would require contacting the photographer for many of these pictures to get the bottom line. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally in the main categorisation scheme, eg 3 Sigma Nearchos is in various hidden categories (eg the propeller one) - see Category:Aircraft by propulsion. There is no conflict between 'your' scheme and (say) Category:Images of aircraft by propulsion. (Let us discuss the 'taking off/landing' issue in the appropriate sections.) Occuli (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - Didn't even know about Category:Aircraft by propulsion...Thanks. That makes this process easier....

I will continue my work categorizing airplane pictures by the scheme i have devised (type and manufacturer). With this new information in mind (Category:Aircraft by propulsion), those editors interested in helping can categorize to their hearts content. I have categorized hundreds of airplanes in by type an manufacturer (remember, there were only ~twenty when I started). Good luck & Thanks all. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of multiple engine aircraft to match Category:Multiple engine aircraft (there is no Category:Multiengine propeller aircraft) and populate. Occuli (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2008 (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:Images of airplanes taking off[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.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It's empty. We haven't been categorizing airplanes by "action". Only by type or by manufacturer. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 02:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Same as above. Cgingold (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting these categories to be deleted because they are empty and provide little or no context to the reader. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 03:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not so sure that this is 'defining'. (Should these images all be displayed or are some under 'fair use' licence?) Occuli (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further thought I agree with the nom on this one. Occuli (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (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:Images of airplanes landing[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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It's empty. We haven't been categorizing airplanes by "action". Only by type or by manufacturer. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Same as above. Cgingold (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Agree that 'action' does not seem to lend itself readily to categorisation. Occuli (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such categories might be appropriate for WikiMedia Commons, but they are not encyclopedic. --Una Smith (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2008 (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.