Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 5 August 7 >

August 6[edit]

Category:Fitna[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 Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Fitna" is a traditional name applied to a specific number of conflicts, but as a generic category name it is pointless, and better covered by Category:Muslim civil wars. It makes sense to group the battles and personalities of a specific "Fitna" under a dedicated category, but there is no reason to distinguish the "Fitnas" as a group from other Muslim civil wars. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from McIntosh, Alabama[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Town categories with just one or two entries. ...William 16:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dukedoms of England[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: no consensus. As far as I can tell, there's no merit to the claim that the Peerage categories were emptied out of process; rather, it appears that those categories were created unilaterally by User:Tryde.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd. Category:Dukedoms of XXX is more concise and more readily understood. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this only is an "incorrect term" if there have never been Dukedoms in England. At times in the past there clearly have been.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The outcome of that discussion should have been no consensus. Tryde (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category is clear what it is at present. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The dukedoms in question do not belong to Engand the country as a whole, but rather they belong to the Peerage of that country, which consists of a select few individuals. Brendandh (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Dukedoms of England" is not clear enough and could lead to incorrect population of the category. The average editor could reasonably assume that because (for example) Manchester is in England, the article Duke of Manchester should be in the category "Dukedoms of England" - which is wrong, as the title is in the Peerage of Great Britain. "Dukedoms in the Peerage of England" preserves the distinction. Opera hat (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England (which has been emptied out of process) and Delete this -- The term is misleading. We do not categorise peerages according to the place that the title comes from. Indeed in some cases (such as Duke of Manchester) there is only a nominal connection. The correct split is between "peerage of England" and "peerage of Scotland" (for pre-1707 creations); "peerage of Ireland" for creations before 1801; "peerage of GB" (creations 1707-1801) and "peerage of UK" (since 1801). In contrast with many other countries, nobles have long had no power of ruling the area from which they took their title. If this policy were fully implemented, some of the subsidiary titles of the Duke of Wellington would appear to be part of the peerage of Spain (but they are not). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not emptied out of process; it was created out of process, with the contents of the "Dukedoms" category moved there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I would look to greater authority on the subject than that of wiki-editors here. Burke's, Debrett's etc has the form suggested above, which has been in use by them for years. Brendandh (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peerage#Divisions_of_the_Peerage, which suggests that peerage of England only applies to those prior to 1707, something not made at all clear in Category:Dukedoms of England, nor even in Category:Peerage of England or even Category:Peerages of the United Kingdom. Which suggests to me that a major cleanup is needed here, else these should be deleted. Convenience in categorising does not trump accuracy. - jc37 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm not being thick here, but aren't you actually supporting the nomination? The idea is that there should be separate categories for Dukedoms created in the separate Peerages of England (until 1707), Scotland (until 1707), Great Britain (1707-1800), Ireland (until 19th century) and the United Kingdom (1801-present). You're absolutely right that this distinction is not made clear in a category entitled simply "Dukedoms of England". Opera hat (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually supporting WP:TNT, while weakly supporting cleanup as an alternative. I oppose the rename on the grounds that (until such cleanup has happened) we would potentially be miscategorising people. Not to mention that WP:BLP is just around the corner... - jc37 01:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc37, your TNT proposal appears to be based on two misunderstandings.
    The first is your BLP concerns. The categories are for articles on the titles rather than for the people who hold those titles. The current holder of the title will be listed in the article, so WP:BLPCAT is relevant ... but since the worst that can happen here is for the technical status of a title's origin to be slightly mis-stated, I see no BLPCAT concerns. There is no risk of any negative labeling being added.
    Secondly, your statement that "convenience in categorising does not trump accuracy" seems to be based on the mistaken assumption that the Peerage of England contains only those people alive before the Kingdom of England was abolished in 1707. That is wrong; the proposed renaming is about adding accuracy, not removing it. For example, the title Duke of Marlborough was created in 1702, in the Peerage of England, and is still extant. So the currently living 11th Duke of Marlborough is a Duke in the peerage of England.
    Your WP:TNT preference would simply require editors to manually recreate category entries which currently exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of England to avoid ambiguity, and clarify that this applies to a particular peerage rather than to a geographical area. There are three different types of Dukedoms within the country of England: those in the Peerage of England, Peerage of Great Britain and Peerage of the United Kingdom. This may require some cleanup, but a renaming is the only way to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of Ireland[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd. Category:Dukedoms of XXX is more concise and more readily understood. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this only is an "incorrect term" if there have never been Dukedoms in Ireland. At times in the past there clearly have been.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dukedom of Ireland is a very problematic term as these titles were issued by the English and later British crown. That's why the more specific term "in the Peerage of Ireland" should be used. Even if Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom the Irish peerage still exists. Tryde (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above. Brendandh (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland (which has been emptied out of process) and Delete this -- Delete for the reasons given for the England case. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not emptied out of process; it was created out of process, with the contents of the "Dukedoms" category moved there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Every Irish dukedom is a dukedom in the peerage of Ireland, so in this case the greater precision adds nothing. Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. See my comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The title Duke of Ireland was in the Peerage of England, not the Peerage of Ireland. It would seem entirely logical for an article called "Duke of Ireland" to be in a category called "Dukedoms of Ireland"; excluding it on the grounds that "Dukedoms of Ireland" should be taken to mean "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland" is almost deliberately misleading for the average reader/editor. Calling the category "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland" does what it says on the tin and allows for no confusion. I see no problem with another category called "Peerage titles named after places in Ireland", but that's not what we're discussing here. Opera hat (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per reasons similar to my comments in the above nom. - jc37 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, your objections appear to be based on misunderstandings of the nature of the peerages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Ireland to avoid ambiguity, and clarify that this applies to a particular peerage rather than to a geographical area. There are three different types of Dukedoms within the island of Ireland: those in the Peerage of Ireland, Jacobite Peerage and Peerage of the United Kingdom. This may require some cleanup, but a renaming is the only way to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of Scotland[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd. Category:Dukedoms of XXX is more concise and more readily understood. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this only is an "incorrect term" if there have never been Dukedoms in Scotland. At times in the past there clearly have been.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a dukedom is not the same thing in every country. Dukedoms in France could be territorial fiefs under the ancien régime, victory titles or duchés-grands-fiefs granted under the First Empire, or non-territorial dukedoms granted under subsequent governments. Dukedoms of Italy could refer to Dukedoms granted by the Kingdom of Italy from 1860-1945, or Dukedoms from any of the Kingdom of Italy's predecessor states such as the Kingdom of Naples or the Papal States (or indeed the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy 1805-1814). In what is now the United Kingdom dukedoms in the different peerages conferred different rights. For example, in the 19th century the Duke of Edinburgh (whose title came from Scotland but whose peerage was of the United Kingdom) had a seat in the House of Lords, but the Duke of Montrose (in the peerage of Scotland) only sat in the Lords because he also happened to be the Earl Graham in the peerage of Great Britain, not by right of his Scottish dukedom. Both titles are named for places in Scotland; both could be called "Dukedoms of Scotland". Calling this category "Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland" preserves the difference between the two. Opera hat (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of Great Britain[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Great Britain. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd. Category:Dukedoms of XXX is more concise and more readily understood. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dukedoms of the United Kingdom[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect term. Replaced by the more precisly named Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Tryde (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it is explicitly stated that categories should not be unilaterally emptied before cfd. Category:Dukedoms of XXX is more concise and more readily understood. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is in line with other similar categories, such as Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland, Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Ireland, Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and so on. Tryde (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have restored the status quo ante contents of the category. Note that this precise change was rejected last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category name at present is clear and explains it's contents well. No need to change. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per above. Brendandh (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom (which has been emptied out of process) and repurpose this as a container category to be a parent to all of the England, Scotland, Ireland, GB and UK peerage categories. The person who emptied the peerage categories out of process without discussion is guilty of vandalism, probably well-meaning vandalism, but vandalism nonetheless. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not emptied out of process; it was created out of process, with the contents of the "Dukedoms" category moved there. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The UK peerage list is separate from the list for England, Scotland, and Great Britain, i.e. UK dukedom was granted post-1801, and is thus not a dukedom of Great Britain (1707-1801), or at least that is the way the categories are currently set up. Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have Category:Dukedoms of France and Category:Dukedoms of Italy . The "in the peerage of" will pass over almost everyone's head. Kauffner (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and there would be no problem with a category called "Dukedoms of the United Kingdom" - but it should contain as a subcategory "Dukedoms in the Peerage of the United Kingdom". The title Duke of Abercorn was created for a subject of the United Kingdom, by the Queen of the United Kingdom, so it could reasonably be called a Dukedom of the United Kingdom - but it was created in the Peerage of Ireland. Dukedom of the United Kingdom =/= Dukedom in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the structure of the various peerages may be beyond the comprehension of some, is no excuse to use incorrect terminology. This should be about true and correct form, rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator. See my above at Dukes in the Peerage of England. Brendandh (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women academics[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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Newly created category, then creator begins moving entries from the old category to the new one. If a name change is to be effected, here is the place to decide upon that issue. __meco (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
► Women by century‎ (51 C)
► Women by continent‎ (6 C)
► Women by country‎ (100 C, 1 P)
► Women by ethnicity‎ (3 C)
► Women by nationality‎ (221 C, 2 P)
▼ Women by occupation‎ (61 C, 2 P)
► Women by nationality and occupation‎ (125 C)
► Women by occupation and nationality‎ (9 C)
► Female academics‎ (5 P)
▼ Women academics‎ (1 C, 26 P)
▼ Women academics by nationality‎ (10 C)
► American women academics‎ (31 P)
► British women academics‎ (2 P)
►:Canadian women academics‎ (21 P)
► Indian women academics‎ (14 P)
► Iranian women academics‎ (9 P)
► Japanese women academics‎ (1 P)
► Mexican women academics‎ (1 P)
► New Zealand women academics‎ (5 P)
► Pakistani women academics‎ (1 P)
► Thai women academics‎ (1 P) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF, and yes, those other "Women academics" categories should be renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge, which seems to be Ottawahitech has in mind. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I just noticed that another category (Men nurses) has been moved to Category:Male nurses with no discussion. I am wondering why there is discussion about such matters sometimes but not other times? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In some cases, it is because the category was renamed speedily; however, in the case of Category:Men nurses, a discussion did take place. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge: Merge female academics to women academics. Seriously. I've been doing "women" categories for years and even created the List of lists of women - this would set us back years of work and frankly, the term "woman" is way more less cold and welcoming than the term "female." And, on a transgender/queer set - I'd rather use the term "woman" than "female," which garners a more genetic/birth make up. SarahStierch (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge For all the categories listed above by Ottawahitech, to which I add "WikiProject Women's History". There are some uses for which "female" is just not a good substitute for "women". Male and female are broad labels not exclusive to humans. We had "women's lib", not "female lib". I have been involved in the creation of multiple Wikipedia articles about women's halls of fame created by U.S. states Not one state refers to their hall of fame as "female hall of fame" or "females of achievement". They are all referred to as "women". Note that Helen Reddy did not record, "I am female, hear me roar." Maile66 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. All female categories dealing with mature concerns, devoid of pre-pubescent girls, should have "women" in the title, not "females". Certainly every career category must be about women, not females. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do we have similar categories for men, e.g. Category:Male academics? I've long been concerned about these cats, because they suggest that "male" is the default, and "female" an abberation. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't exist, but there is something disturbing about them, and it's in that context that I think the word "female" sounds wrong, though it's grammatically correct as an adjective (we wouldn't talk about "men academics," so "women academics" isn't correct). But I have often found myself preferring to write "women academics" too, and I don't know why.

    If, following Binksternet's point, "women" is used to distinguish grown-ups from "girls" (because "female" could be either), we don't have that concern about "male"; that is, we don't worry that a "male astronaut" might imply that he is a boy. So it would be worrying if "female" connotes youth more than "male" does. Anyway, sorry if this is a bit of a ramble, but I'm interested to work out why our language feels awkward on this point. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Because English has absorbed several ways to say certain things from various other languages, and over time, people tend to give the variant forms semantic differentiation : ) - jc37 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As occupations can and often are done by those who some may deem to be children (cabinboy is merely one job which immediately springs to mind - And incidentally, I think we'd agree that several people represented in the film Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, while young, were not cabin boys.) So I think it's a mistake to get caught up in the "adult" argument. - jc37 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In general, looking at the tree, I would support: Rename "X occupations" to "Female occupations". Rename "X by Z" or "X in Q" to "Women by Z" or "Women in Q". This is the clearest semantically, and the least ambiguous. - jc37 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Academics - In looking over the tree, I'm wondering why the occupations cats aren't merged, the same way actresses have been merged to Category:Actors. - jc37 22:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably because the actresses categories were deleted in a very bad closure of a discussion which was split over 6 different sections. That closure ignored the point made in the discussion that acting is a rigidly-gendered profession, and while I often admired Kbdank71's closures, that one is outrageous. It's time for that perverse decision to be revisited. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the answer is that actors are the only thing it ever said should not be split, so every other even semi-large occupation has been subdivided by gender, no matter how much the actos example ought to be applicable to the case at hand. I do not like the situation, but enough other people do that it is unlikely to change anytime soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one? Well, here are a few more: Category:Scholars, Category:Chefs, Category:Flight attendants, and a plethora of other examples at Category:People by occupation. - jc37 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why should chefs not be split? I see that cooking competitions award male and female titles. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming World Swimmers of the Year[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: listify. The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A scheme such as this where each category gets one addition per year seems eminently suited for listification. __meco (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military expeditions of the United States[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: do not rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Military operations categories use "involving" rather than "of" in their formulation. See for example Category:Battles by country and Category:Wars by country Tim! (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The War of 1812 would certainly encompass military expeditions involving the USA, given the British invasion. This category is for expeditions conducted by the USA and is thus more restrictive (as really makes sense). Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. A battle usually is part of a larger war and often is joined by two sides rather than initiated by one or the other, so it makes sense to use "involving"—there's no sense trying to decide who started it as the important part is knowing who was involved. An expedition, on the other hand, has a clear initiator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think by or from would be a better construction than of if we are going to categorise by initiator country. Tim! (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Mangoe, but this time disagree with Tim! and support leaving it "of". I can't clearly articulate why "punitive expeditions by" sounds better yet "military expeditions of" should remain, but in terms of flow and clarity those are the options I think sound best. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to prefer "of" but I wouldn't resist "by" if others wanted that instead. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per mangoe. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is of is the simplest way to convey ownership of the operation, and with a military expedition that is what is being conveyed. "Involving" would allow for inclusion when the involvement was miniscule, but "of" forces it to be a key component of the operation. Military expeditions are not like battles. In a battle there are two sides attacking each other. In an expedition one side begins someone and goes into a new place. They may be fighting an opposing expeditionary force, but you do not become a military expedition sitting around on your farm, you have to have proactively gone out and become involved in the endevor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is nothing to prevent an expedition being one of US and one of another country, if the facts warrant that. I think "of" is gramatically better than "by", but that is a marginal issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Punitive expeditions[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: do not rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Military operations categories use "involving" rather than "of" in their formulation. See for example Category:Battles by country and Category:Wars by country Tim! (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose As with the more general expedition category, these are more or less one-sided actions. Categorizing them according to who conducted them makes more sense than a more general "involving" relationship. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe. A battle usually is part of a larger war and often is joined by two sides rather than initiated by one or the other, so it makes sense to use "involving"—there's no sense trying to decide who started it as the important part is knowing who was involved. An expedition, on the other hand, has a clear initiator. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think by or from would be a better construction than of if we are going to categorise by initiator country. Tim! (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe, and concur with Tim! that "by" would be the clearest way to demarcate the initiator. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of conveys the sense of the force making the decision to do so. At least in theory another country could initiate a puntative expedition against France, and then it would be such involving France, but what we want here are punitive expeditions initiatied by France. In theory all four countries could have done a punitive expedition jointly against someone else, and the expedition could properly be placed in all four countries, but if three of them invaded the fourth for punative reasons, the fourth would not be properly categorized as an initiator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This involves one country punishing another. UK and France bombarded Algiers in (I think) 1816. That was clearly a punitive expedition by France and also by UK. It involved the state of Algiers, but it was the victim of the punishment, which is very different from inflicting it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Harry Potter images and templates[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 Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary container for Category:Harry Potter images and Category:Harry Potter templates that will never contain more than these two subcats, both of which appear directly in Category:Harry Potter. I don't know what purpose this container category served in 2007 but, regardless, it is no longer needed. We needn't upmerge to Category:Harry Potter task force since it is implied that the whole of Category:Harry Potter falls under the purview of that task force. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Invaders from Mars films[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:Mars in film - the category's contents are already categorised in the first proposed merge target. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If I'm not mistaken, there have been only two Invaders from Mars films: the original 1953 version and the 1986 remake. Thus, this is a small category that is unlikely to be expanded and is not of sufficient size to merit a separate series category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Living performers of Christian music[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 to Category:WikiProject Christian music biographies of living people. (amended closure after I misread the discussion).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I can see the logic of dividing up the large Category:Performers of Christian music, this category strikes me as a little odd, simply because it's the only biographical category I'm aware of that subcategorises by living/dead status. (There's also Category:Current national leaders, but that's slightly different.) I don't think that's really a good idea for subcategorisation. However, I do recognise what this category is trying to do, so perhaps it should be renamed to something like Category:Contemporary performers of Christian music? Or should it just be deleted? Robofish (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Xtro films with alien visitation plot[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are three films in the Xtro series, of which two (Xtro and Xtro 3) feature alien visitation. There is no need to split out this category from Category:Alien visitation films when it will contain just two members; furthermore, there is not enough material about this series overall to merit a general series category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Hidden films[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It appears that there are only two films in the The Hidden series, which is not enought to merit a separate category. My search of IMDb turned up several other films with the same name but they appeared to be unrelated. I am not proposing a merge to Category:Neo-noir, the other parent category, since neither article includes any mention of this genre; however, I do not oppose a dual upmerge in principle. (Category creator not notified: retired) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

United States presidential campaigns[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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination follows up on the discussion of 17 July, where there appeared to be a consensus to use the shorter form United States presidential campaigns, YYYY. Six of the eleven nominated categories contain only one article and could, therefore, be upmerged to Category:United States presidential campaigns and the corresponding Category:United States presidential election, YYYY until there exists more content that could be placed in them. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_6&oldid=1074808624"