Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13[edit]

Post-punk[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: keep all (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having "music" after the genre would be appropriate for a genre like "rock", given that "rock groups" could refer to types of rock, but not this. Most of these genre categories I've seen just say "[Nationality] [genre] groups" and not "[Nationality] [genre] music groups". Lachlan Foley 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. "Post-punk" would be assumed by many readers to be similar to steampunk and cyberpunk somehow without the qualifier, therefore it is ambigiuous. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bushranger, terms with "punk" are not always limited to just music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' Punk subculture includes music, fashion, visual art, literature, and film. We have to specify that we are talking about music and not another punk-derived subject. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (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:Communist regime[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is entirely encompassed by the Communist States category. Ducknish (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 13, 2013; 21:47 (UTC)
  • Delete - the category contained articles not just on states, but on non-state entities as well (i.e. Khmer Rouge). However the Category:Communist states category is the one that should be used here, as "Communist regime" does not fit in either tree its editor placed it in, and I'm not sure where it would. Note that the category was depopulted out of process by another editor (not one of the above), I am reverting that. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the category and the nomination are rubbish, and I am not sure whether of two is more rubbish. The only purpose which could justify existence of the category is to list institutions and phenomena typical for communist states, which is incompatible with stuffing it with examples of states, just like United States should not belong to category: Capitalism. One should not “propose merging to communist states”. One should cleanse all inappropriate items instead, and look on what will remain of the category. The Bushranger, stop doing the wrong thing such as [1], please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not "the wrong thing". That was restoring the contents of a category that had been emptied out of process while under discussion at CfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split then delete -- None of the content is regimes. It is a mixture of Communist states and Category:Communist parties. If everything is already in the appropriate target, then it will be a plain "delete". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Scotch-Irish 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also merge with Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent‎. This is a trivial detail and it contains less than 5 articles. JDDJS (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Fictional American people. There is no need for the specific ethnicity cats like this, especially in cases where it is not defining. Anyway, Scotch Irish are not Irish, they are Scottish who lived for a time in Ireland before emigrating to the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all three of these (which should be merged into a single section) for the same reasons as given at this CfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Scottish-Irish" is a single ethnicity, for Protestants from Northern Ireland who emigrated to US. The fact that these ethnic categories seem to be recognised in US seems to me a reason for retaining the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Portuguese 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only three articles in this category. This is a very trivial detail JDDJS (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Danish 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only three articles in this category. This is a very trivial detail JDDJS (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (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 with missing ears[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this is WP:DEFINING to most individuals in the category, with the obvious exception. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Most of the articles don't mention this in the lead. Why restrict this just to missing ears? What about missing limbs, etc? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about missing limbs, etc? Category:Amputees. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I actually spent some time last night looking for that category, and I couldn't think of the word "amputee". D'oh! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - insufficiently defining for categorisation. If they were born with missing ears, perahps...- The Bushranger One ping only 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably not fun for the ppl concerned, but not defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really a trait that creats a commonality among those involved. Since it lead to a war, at least in the case of Robert Jenkins (master mariner) it probably is defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Missing", as in the owner does not know where it is? Or "missing", meaning less than two, whether by defect of birth, accident, wound, self-infliction, etc? Way too broad and not defining in most cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, being an amputee is a defining characteristic, as it can have a profound impact on how a person performs even the most basic functions of daily living — having to walk on your hands because you don't have any legs, having to use your feet to feed yourself because you don't have hands, etc. — whereas the consequences of missing an ear are predominantly cosmetic. These people don't normally lack the inner ear structures that actually do the ear's job; they lack the outer flap of cartilage and skin that define the ear's outward physical appearance. They still have an ear canal and an eardrum and a cochlea in most cases, and those generally still work — it just doesn't look like a normal ear from the outside. (And even when they do lack the inner structures, that's almost always part of a larger and more defining syndrome of physical defects rather than a defining characteristic in and of itself.) By the same token, while we do indeed categorize people as amputees when they're missing one or more arms or legs, we do not categorize people by minor (i.e. finger or toe) amputations whose impact is more modest and cosmetic in nature rather than being truly disabling. So there might certainly be some cases where the missing ear points toward a more legitimately defining and categorizable physical condition, but the simple fact of missing an ear is not defining by itself. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the loss of an ear is a relatively trivial injury. The loss of a leg, arm, or eye would be quite different. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2013 (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:American women writers by city[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: double upmerge of subcats and delete top cat. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete the parent category and merge subcategories to all appropriate targets. This triple intersection of gender, occupation and city of origin is not helpful and only isolates women in a subcategory. We don't split Category:People from Chicago, Illinois by gender so we certainly shouldn't split Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois. In fact, we don't even split Category:People from Illinois according to gender. If there is something distinct in the literary production of women's writers from Chicago (which I doubt), then a list would be a better solution. Pichpich (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't really see the point of splitting the by-US-state writer categories according to gender. But first things first. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as creator. I don't really care one way or another; I created these as an outcropping of the "women writers by state" categories, as that seemed to be the way things were devolving. I have no problem with them being deleted. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we do not split people cats by gender, but we do split writer cats by gender. I see no reason why we should not do it at the city level. We have already agreed to in some cases split sportspeople by gender at the city level, I see no reason why we should not do the same for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that argument. The fact that the parent category is split by gender doesn't mean that we should split all children by gender. Category:Writers is also split by ethnicity and by century, yet I don't think anyone would suggest the triple intersection Category:19th-century writers from New York City or Category:Ethnic Armenian writers from New York City. Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Occupation by city" intersections are, in the vast majority of cases, a deeply undesirable bag of crap that should actually be getting cut back rather than expanded further. Excepting some mayors and city councillors, frankly, we almost never actually need occupations to be subdivided any more narrowly than the state level. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. This is just a triple intersection WP:OCAT which is ghettoizing women writers for no really compelling reason, not really a very helpful division at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- Women novelists tend to write a different calss of fiction from male novelists. Gender is thus a valid distinction here. It is probably less singificant in non-fiction, particularly academic writing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, writers are split at the top level into women, as women are recognized as having a different approach to the discipline, per peterk. The cities listed are the major metro areas with significant author populations, and a local literary/academic culture. As long as the categories for the cities are jam packed with names, a way to break them up, esp. with only 1 sub cat, makes sense. ps i moved "women writers from sfbay area" out of "women writers by city" as its not a city, but a region.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Bearcat noted, this is not splitting a category jam packed with names, it's ghettoizing women in a subcategory. And we've never split these city-specific categories according to ethnicity or century (to name just a couple of options) which would probably be more meaningful than the gender split. Why? Because these categories don't need splitting. The Chicago and SF categories have less than 300 writers, Boston, LA and Seattle less that 100, Portland about a 100. That is clearly not jam packed. Even the NYC category has a very manageable 600 entries. I also want to stress that I agree with two of your statements. Men and women do have somewhat distinct approaches to writing and separate top-level categories for men and women writers makes sense. It's also true that some cities can have somewhat distinct literary scenes and this can justify (in some instances) a city-specific category. But existing categories don't need to be intersected systematically. Pichpich (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that since most of YOUR argument is valid (or at least completely rational) as well, i dont see upmerging as a huge loss, or completely contraindicated by other categorization policies. so i would change mine to Weak Oppose.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. This is not really defining, and the numbers aren't large enough to justify splitting for the purposes of smaller cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2013 (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:Firefly (TV series) fan 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 all parents, without prejudice to re-creation if and when there are enough articles to make a viable category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OCAT, only contains one page. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- I cannot believe this is ever going to be welkl populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - given the cult status of Firefly, this seems like a category that has a more than reasonable chance of expansion. Whether that means "keep" or "delete now, recreate later", I'm not 100% sure though, but would lean to WP:RETAIN if pressed. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:18, 20 March 2013 (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.

Fan 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: rename both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 27#Category:Star Trek films. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 13 March 2013 (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:Songs produced by Linda McCartney[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains all the songs from one album, and each member of this category is a redirect. The album is also a member of Category:Albums produced by Linda McCartney which doubly makes this category redundant. Plus, a category full of redirects to the same page is an impediment to navigation; it wastes readers' time.. Richhoncho (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. There really should be a speedy criterion for the deletion of categories which consist only of redirects to the same page. A category like that is always a waste of the reader's time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not need a category that is all redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we ever get more than a half dozen of her produced songs to have articles, MAYBE we could recreate. for now, essentially an empty category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2013 (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:2020s in Ghana[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: speedy deleted per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CRYSTAL. An editor has made yearly articles which are all up for deletion[2]. If those are deleted, this category should be also. ...William 12:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In any case, I expect that by the time this CfD closes, the articles will have been deleted per WP:SNOW. Pichpich (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *Delete for all we know the partisans of Akanland will overthrow the governments of Ghana and Ivory Coast in 2019 and there will be no Ghana in the 2020s. If wikipedia had existed in 1986 would we have set up Category:East Germany in the 2000s?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2013 (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:History of China in operas[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 Category:History of China in operas, and merge subcats to Category:Operas set in China. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and its subcategories which I am also nominating below seem to be a clear case of over categorization. The parent category, Category:Operas set in China, had only 14 articles in it, and is likely to grow very, very slowly, if at all. This new category and its multiple subcats, contain in total 4 articles and add several extra obstacles to the reader simply looking for operas set in China. Note also that the parent category of Category:Operas set in China is Category:Operas by country of setting and these subcats introduce an intersection of setting + specific historical period. If nothing else this category does not belong as a subcat of Category:Operas set in China. Voceditenore (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated for deletion
  • I'm not sure I have feelings one way or the other about the categories, but NB if they are deleted, contents should be upmerged not just to the relevant opera category but also to the relevant dynasty categories, eg. Category:Song Dynasty in fiction (or Category:Plays set in Song Dynasty). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to the relevant period of history in fiction categories. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all back to Operas set in China. It is unclear why some of the category contents exists. It is not even clear from th article that Marco Polo (opera) is even set in China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the articles going to upmerge, then at least to relevant period of history in fiction, to help the identification of articles and navigations.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorisation. No need when Category:Operas set in China takes care of the handful of works concerned. Making "History of Mongolia in operas" a subcategory of "History of China in operas" is also likely to set the cat among the pigeons. --Folantin (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all -- to Category:Operas set in China. One category is enough to cover them all. The individual operas can be given an appropriate period-related media category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2013 (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 Kensington and Chelsea (London borough)[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was recently renamed from (district) disambiguation to (London borough) dabbing, along with the other People-from-London-borough categories. However, while cleaning up after the move, I came across this discussion from a few years back, in which it was mooted that if it passed (it did), the dab could be removed from this category. And there are no other "Kensington and Chelsea"s for people to be from. So, is it more important that this retain the (London borough) disambiguator like all other subcats of Category:People from London by borough, or should it have the unneeded disambiguator removed like the other subcategories of Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea? The Bushranger One ping only 08:43, 13 March 2013 (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:Organizations in cryptography[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. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More standard naming convention. Tim! (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2013 (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:French rugby union championship[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Top 14. However if this is deemed too ambiguous, then the category should be renamed to Category:Top 14 (rugby union). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Top 14 (rugby union). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Top 14 (rugby union). I opposed a speedy renaming to Category:Top 14, because it is far too ambiguous, but the disambiguator clarifies its scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Could you explain, why it's ambiguous? I couldn't find anything other named "Top 14" on Wikipedia. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply. Because it's a generic term which could be applied to the top 14 of anything. When used in a category name, there is no context to clarify its meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yeah, that makes sense. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If "Top 14" is too ambiguous to be a category name, why is it being used as an article name? – PeeJay 10:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Ambiguity in category titles has much more damaging consequences, because it leads to articles being miscategorised and the software makes it very hard to monitor such miscategorisations. That's why we often disambiguate category names even in cases where the head article is not disambiguated (e.g. the Birmingham is the head article for Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is recentism. The competition under various guises has lasted far longer than the Top 14. Keep as is, or create an umbrella category and split into two subdivisions. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to avoid recentism or anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it used to be quite different to a single division before the establishment of the Top 14, and I think the renaming will be quite confusing. Neither name is perfect, but at least the current one is descriptive. - Shudde talk 12:19, 9 April 2013 (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:Television series by Buena Vista Television[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. Editors may wish to create a new category for films distributed under the new brand name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television to Category:Television series by Disney-ABC Television
Nominator's rationale: Disney no longer uses the "Buena Vista" brand name for its television unit, instead the Disney or ABC brands (or both) are used. It's been like this for half a decade. Freshh (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename This might work if it was limited to those things that used the former brand name but it is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted as the article was not previously tagged for renaming
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split, I think. I have long had a concern about deleting brands when there is a name change. The article appears to have a list of many of the items that should be included in Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television. Even though the name changed, I believe that most of these will display the old studio name when they are viewed. So while the studio name no longer exists, the work it produced does still exist retaining the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet -- For alumni categories, the alumni of a renamed or merged college are treated as having attended the successor. Why not for TV? If the categories are large, we might nevertheless use the old name for a category of historic articles from the period when the brand was in use. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But alumni of a school that is renamed may in fact not use the new name. Many/most/all of them still use the old school name. So as I said above, I have long had a concern about deleting brands which is what happens when we do this. Doing this for schools and other places does not make it right here or for that matter there. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you tried to split out the alumni of Wayne University from those who graduated from the later Wayne State University you would create a bigger mess than you would fix. Then there is Truman State University and some other universities in both Missouri and Alabama that have gone through so many name changes no one other than alumni would realize the various names all apply to the same place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truman State University is on its 7th name. At some points it has changed names multiple times within the time a student would take to graduate. It really makes no sense to sub-divide the alumni categories for each name change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2013 (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:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is a bit odd, grammatically, since it leaves open the possibility of administrators who are willing to consider placing self-requested blocks but unwilling to actually place them. The proposed title is shorter, clearer, and more closely matches the convention within Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willing to consider renaming. I'm not sure on this one. As noted at WP:SELFBLOCK, such requests are typically refused. The admins in this category are likely to be those who will look at each case on its merits, and it seems to me that the renaming implies that they are "admins who will act on any self-block request". I'd like to see some feedback from some of the 17 admins who have placed themselves in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the nuances in the name are important and should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name makes it clear that even if such blocks have been granted in the past it is at the administrator's discretion. The new name makes no such distinction.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:59, 16 March 2013 (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 equipment of the Chaco War[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 consensus is that only 2 articles really belong in this category (Humaitá-class gunboat and ARP Tacuary), so there is nothing to listify ... and that 2 articles is too small to justify a weapons-by-conflict category. However, Category:Ships by conflict seems to be a less contentious category tree, so feel free to create a new Category:Ships of the Chaco War for the 2 ship articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As determined in several recent CfDs, "military equipment by conflict" is not a sufficiently defining concept to require categorisation, particularly in the case of a minor conflict such as this. Furthermore, two of the four articles in this category are not even about military equipment of the war, but operations in the war, already properly categorised in Category:Chaco War; the other two are ships, and are properly categorised elsewhere as well. The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Chaco War at least in theory, in practice I think everything may still be in that category. The contents are two articles about aspects of the Chaco War, an article on a class of gun boats largely built for Paraguay to use in the war, and an article on a specific ship involved in the war, so it seems that they all belong with the war, but only two are on military equitment, and it is not worth having a category with two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two non-ship articles are already in Category:Chaco War, which is why I suggested above the alternative renaming to Category:Ships of the Chaco War. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the rename. We do not need a category for two ships. The Chaco War category is enough for the amount of contents it will have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify perhaps within the main article-- This is essnetially a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2013 (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:Early American naval commanders[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: split into Category:19th-century American naval officers, Category:20th-century American naval officers, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think it's wise to split US Navy officers by period and unless I missed something, there's no "by period" categorization of officers of any country. In this case, there's another important problem: "early" is not a well-defined era of American history so it's impossible to determine the exact criteria for inclusion in the category. Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. 'Early' is not defined. Can we split and rename the category? How about 18th Century American naval commanders and 19th Century American naval commanders and 20th Century American naval commanders? It would seem lumping all American naval commanders under one umbrella isn't the best way to go either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:United States Naval officers (which oddly enough is a sub-cat). If we are going to have by century cats should we not also have Category:21st-century American naval officers. I think we should use "officers" and not "commanders" in the by century cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the by-century proposal. I don't think this is really much better because centuries are also arbitrary cutoffs. If we really want to classify officers by time period, it would make more sense to classify by armed conflict. (But honestly I don't see much value in that either.) Pichpich (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comments: 'Officers' are not always 'commanders' of ships. And using 'armed conflict' to define a Cat' doesn't quite get it because many commanders were involved in several wars. e.g.Stephen Decatur fought in the Quasi War with France, the War of 1812 and the First and Second Barbary Wars, all of which occurred in the 19th century, as did John Rodgers and others. Defining the Cat' by century seems the best way to go as this would encompass several wars/conflicts at the same time. There might be cases where a commander fought in wars that took place in different centuries but this is (very) rare. Can't even think of one off hand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly in the RN it was common in the Napoleonic era, and for Japan/Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Maybe this is less true of the USN but equally it might be best to think of a format that can be replicated by other navies if required.Le Deluge (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth the quasi-war was not in the 19th, but the 18th century. It ends in 1800, the 19th-century does not began until 1801.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insert: Opps.. You're correct. Decatur in this case would fit into two such categories. 18th Century and 19th Century American naval officers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Officers" is a more useful, general term - "commander" is a bit fuzzier and I doubt an "officers" category would become too overcrowded. Go with the more general term to start with. If you're going with "xth century", then perhaps "commissioned in xth century" or "born in xth century" might be more precise.Le Deluge (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Le deluge. Let's make the category as broad as possible and then see just how big it gets. We can subdivide from there if it's too large. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Let's do it. We can start with and create Category:19th Century American naval officers and move the names (except for John Paul Jones) from Category:Early American naval commanders into it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we do have Category:Union Navy officers which is limited to those who served during the U.S. Civil War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many individuals in history that fit into two or more categories. Are we ready to move, yet? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 1,781 entries listed under this category, all lumped together. That is plenty of reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Category:American film actors has over 10,000 articles and we have not seen fit to divide it by time period, so size alone is not persuasive. We might also argue that wars would be a better way to divide. However I think especially in the early 19th-century enough of these people were involved in multiple conflicts that wars would be a split too far, but century is a good way to devide them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous entries, size, is one of the most persuasive reasons for creating sub categories. The reason we have cat's is to sort large numbers of entries -- and on that note I would highly recommend finding sub cat's for 'American film actors'. Sub dividing by 'War' in the case of 'American navel captains' could get tacky because as I mentioned above, many officers have fought in two or more wars. Stephen Decatur and John Rodgers for example fought in four different wars -- all in the 19th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While we have the sub Cat's mentioned by Benea, we still don't have any specific to e.g.the War of 1812 (one for People, not naval officers) , the American Civil War, the Barbary Wars, etc, so my thinking was that since all of these wars occurred during the 19th century, and since many officers fought in several, as discussed above, we also need a Cat' specific to this general era. Or should we make cat's specific to all the individual wars -- which would result in just as many if not more Cat's. If anything we should simply rename the Cat proposed for deletion to Category:Early American naval officers (1775 - 1815) This would cover Naval Officers of the Revolution, Quasi-War, both Barbary wars and the War of 1812. Again, there is always an area of overlap among Cat's and many officers accordingly fit into two or more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply : I don't think we don't need to create a Cat for each Barbary War, while making cat's for all the individual (often lesser) wars will become redundant, some officers fitting into several wars. Overlap is to be expected, but I think only to a point. As I mentioned several officers, that I know of, I'm sure there's more, would fit into four or more Cat's if they were defined by individual wars. While trying to replicate a Cat' structure of another country may sound 'consistent' on the surface it appears not to be the practical way to go for the American navy. It would be nice to have one Cat' for naval officers (there are many) who served in this one defining and unique era of America history. (1775-1815) That would spare us a lot of additional Cat's. If you still would like to create the Cat's you mentioned above they could be sub Cat's to this more encompassing Cat' of 1778-1815. In any case this is really getting to be a discretionary call. For now I still think we should go the simpler route and simply rename the Cat up for deletion. A cat for naval officers of this general period (Early American) would serve well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the problem with having four or more cats on an article? Why not have a category for each Barbary War? Why is it not practical, and finally, what is this defining and apparently unique period of history, that lumps together five wars, with different opponents, over a thirty year period, with intervening periods of peace? This is all getting very subjective. We've tried to define it as 'early', by century, and finally by this arbitrary period by dates. Categories by conflict do not overlap, they are discrete periods of conflict, therefore there will be no redundancy for lesser wars because some personnel fit into several categories. The present suggested system would collect officers who served only in the Revolutionary War with those who served only in the Second Barbary War 35 years later, only for the sake of those officers whose career spanned the entire 35 year period. Organising it along the lines of the British one allows those persons who served in one conflict to be categorised immediately with those who fought beside them in the same conflict, rather than in a vague 35 year block based on someone's definition of defining and unique. Benea (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your arguments are apparently sound. Okay, we need to make a few added cat's for wars, and if a given officer fits into two or more of them (Decatur and Rodgers would fit into at least four) then, on retrospect, this is all well and good. Thanks for your thoughts. A couple of last questions: Should we be making separate Cat's for a given war for Admirals and Officers -- and will we be separating Army officers from Naval officers? I hope so. If we lump too many military types, ranks along with 'personnel' into one Cat it seems it will defeat the purpose of categorization i.e.the effort of sorting and organizing large groups of names. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Next phase[edit]
I agree with separating Army from Navy (and other services). Category:British military personnel by war is the parent cat, which divides into Category:Royal Navy personnel by war, Category:Royal Air Force personnel by war and Category:British Army personnel by war. The by war categories are also integrated with the existing Category:Military personnel by war and nation, so you have Category:Military personnel of the War of 1812, and can break down the existing Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812 into army and navy. There's already Category:American militiamen in the War of 1812. As for breaking down by officers and admirals, I'm less keen though. Benea (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Benea, but as you pointed out on 22 Feb, we already have Category:United States Navy officers and Category:United States Navy admirals. How do we integrate War-Cat's with them? We can't place an individual War-Cat under Admirals and Officers -- and we can't place Admirals and Officers under each War-Cat, so it seems War-Cat's and Cat's for Admirals and Officers must be stand alone cats and independent of each other in terms of sub Cat's. Looking at Cat's for both Admirals and Officers there seems to be other items we should be mindful of. For example 'Continental Navy officers' (Revolutionary period, war specific) is under the Cat' for Naval officers, but there is no corresponding Cat' for 'Continental Navy Admirals', for openers. IMO, it seems a condensation of and reordering of Cat's is needed. We have cats for 'personnel', 'Officers, Admirals and Commodores' with war-specific cats mixed into the works. Correction : There were no Admirals until David Farragut (of the Civil War) came along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit later I will begin removing the names from the Category:Early American naval commanders if there are no objections or other suggestions. After navigating through the maze of categories it seems there are enough of them, perhaps too many, that seem to cover any individual that may have otherwise fit into the 'Early American' category. Perhaps I was too quick to create that category. My apologies for any inconvenience or trouble I may have caused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cats work by categorising people as either officers or admirals. So articles would be tagged with either one of these as appropriate, and then with the relevant war cats. So Stephen Decatur for example would have the category Category:United States Navy officers and then Category:American naval personnel of the Quasi-War, Category:American naval personnel of the War of 1812 and Category:American naval personnel of the Barbary Wars, replacing the existing more general cats Category:American military personnel of the War of 1812, Category:United States people of the Barbary Wars and Category:People of the Quasi-War. Benea (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Deletion should not be an option anyway: if anything we should merge. Any potential merge target will already be a colossally large category, which we probably ought to split. I do not think that a split by war would be appropriate, as it would lead to multiple similar categoriusations in some cases. I would suggest Category:American ante-bellum naval commanders for all periods proceding the Civil War. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subdivide by century at least with 18th and 19th century cats. I do not think war would be useful in all cases since so many officers were involved in multiple samll wars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2013 (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 operations post-1945[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: keep, at least temporarily. There are many subcategories of Category:Warfare post-1945 which use the "post-1945" format. That format should be nominated globally if a change is desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. It contains two types of sub-categories - by-date categories and by-country(/organisation) categories (for 3 post-1945 organisations). The by-date categories should be upmerged to Category:Military operations by period. The country/organisation categories can be removed from this category - they're still categorized in the more relevant Category:Military operations by country. This is a step towards fixing the partial overlap between "post-1945" categories and "20th-century" categories (an operation in 1977 would be eligable for both these cats, but neither of these cats can be a subcat of the other). Note: This is an alternative to merging the "post-1945 period" category - if that category is merged then this category should be kept. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as an unneeded level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this be divided into the Cold War period and post-Cold War period ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, see [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_7#Category:Military_operations_of_the_post-1945_period. DexDor (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do nothing The nomination makes no sense. It is to upmerge a specific period category into a container category of periods. The articles are not periods, they certainly cannot be directly placed in this container category which is only for period subcats. Hmains (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "post-1945" cat (currently) contains only subcats - I've added a "container category" tag to it. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the articles go that used to be in Category:Military operations post-1945? Hmains (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Into subcats - Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period and Category:Military operations of the 21st-century. DexDor (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I also see someone nominated Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period for deletion/renaming almost as soon as you created it. Hmains (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 13 March 2013 (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 operations of the post-1945 period[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:Military operations post-1945.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OR
Nominator's rationale: Rename or merge. This category is a subcategory of Category:Military operations post-1945. It is defined as being for military operations from the end of the Second World War to the year 2000. So in other words, it's acting as "20th-century military operations post-1945". The current name is not clear at all. I'm not sure if we should simply upmerge this to Category:Military operations post-1945 or if we should try to come up with a name that works. There is no broader scheme for military topics in the 20th century that are post-1945. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it'll need to have text explaining that it's only for operations after WWII. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should be about the Cold War period (ie. approx 1945-1991) and the post Cold War period. So that's where the split should be. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's several problems with that idea (which I had considered myself) - "M.o. of the Cold War period" includes the word period which I think is what the nom is trying to avoid (and would be a slightly strange way to categorize articles about any ops by countries not involved in the Cold War), "M.o. of the Cold War" would be OK as a category but doesn't solve this problem because it can't contain any ops that weren't part of the Cold War, and (most significantly) "M.o. of the post-Cold War period" has exactly the same problem as "M.o. post-1945" (it doesn't fit within the 20th-century category) - in fact it's even worse as editors/readers are more likely to consider 2001 etc part of the post-Cold War period than part of the post-1945 period. DexDor (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Military operations since World War II. A while back we did a major cull on 20th/21st century categories as an attempt to have a past/current distinction. In the field of war, the end of WWII is clearly major punctuation point, marking a change of era. We need to resist the urge to split things further until it is clear that the category is too full for comfort. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't the end of the Cold War also be such a punctuation point? No more proxy wars. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Category:Military operations 1945–2000, and upmerge some subcategories of Category:Cold War to subcategories of this category. A subcategory covering most (1947-91 or 1946-90?) of the 1945–2000 period is unnecessary, and it is unclear whether the “Cold War” category covers all events within the period or those related to the USA/USSR/NATO only. Hugo999 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: No "from" just "1945–2000" (and not "from 1945 to 2000") Hugo999 (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Military operations from 1945-2000. With the events of Sep. 11, 2001 and the start of the "War on Terror" at that point, ending one category in 2000 and starting the next in 2001 makes sense. Anyway we allow 20th-century and 21st-century categories when they are part of a longer series. We only disallow them when by their nature they will not have anything predating 1900 and so will only be two categories. That is not an issue here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We discorage a 20th/21st century split when those are the only two categories. We have lots of places where we split between the two as part of a much larger sequence. It would make sense to do so here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2013 (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:Indian actors by language[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:Categories by language of IndiaCategory:Actors by language of India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. I had intended to close this as rename to Category:Actors by language of India, but screwed up. I will now fix the bot's work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Indian actors by language to Category:Actors by language or Category:Film actors by language
  • Nominator's rationale not all of the contents of these categories are actually Indian actors. Most are actually categories for actors grouping them by the languages of the films they acted in. I really think we would be best off reworking these into just categories that connected acting with the language of films. A seperate set for acting by language in theatre might work. I am somewhat heistant to rename these categories, because I do not want to expand them to include a wrold-wide structure. However there are several non-Indians in these categories, so it would seem best to stop treating them as child categories of Category:Indian actors. To fit in that category a person needs to be a national of India. However to fit in these categories people only have to have acted in certain languages. Category:Tamil film actors and Category:Bengali film actors may not even be limited to films made in India, and many Hindi film actors are clearly Pakistanis who were acting in India-made films and clearly not Indian nationals. There are also other people who show up who are British, Brazilian, American, Australian and maybe other nationals as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Bengali film actors is connected to Bengali cinema, which is a term that covers films made in Bengali, both in Kolkata in India and in Dhaka in Bangladesh. The cinema is essentially trans-national. It is a clear group and worth categorizing but not placeable as a sub-cat of any nationality cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am not clear whether the categories are actually native language ones or Indian state ones, but we should have them a Tamil speaker will probably not perform well in a Hindi/Urdu language film. Since the languages are ones spoken only in India, upmerging (per nom) acheives little: yes I know that there are langauges shared with neighbours within the subcontinent - Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually lots and lots and lots of people have been in Tamil and Hindi films. The overlaps between these various categories is very high. Beyond that, the Hindi category could not possibly be a state category, since it is not limited to one state. The various films categories are clearly being used as categories to group together people who appeared in those films. These, as I mentioned above, contain lots of actors who are not Indian nationals. This is especially true of Category:Hindi film actors which has both a large number of Pakistani nationals, and is also probably the one with the most people who are from other countries as well, including one article on a British man who spent 6 months leatrning Hindi so he could act in a Hindi film. The claim these languages are spoken only in India is false. Most obviously Bengali is spoken outside India. Hindi is also spoken in Fiji and many other places outside the subcontinent. Also, Peter Kingiron has entirely ignored the fact that the current name is saying the people are Indian, when as I have shown many of the people involved in the film actors cats are not Indian at all, but are foriegn nationals who came to India only to perform in films there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you want a sense of why this is clearly not a by state category look at the article on Rati Agnihotri. She is in five film-language categories, none related to where she was born, and is also in another people category that seems to refelct where in India her ancestors came from, and does not overlap with any of her film film-language cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of the complexities of these categories can be seen by looking at the article on Kirron Kher. Currently she is only in a Hindi realted category. The vast majority of the films she was in were Hindi, but she was also in English, Bengali and Punjabi language films and a few more. I half wonder if with such heavy cross-over between languages these categories are heading towards being performer by performance overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 13 March 2013 (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:Museums of Ancient Rome[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. There were objections to the name but I have not managed to extract an improved version from this discussion; Category:Egyptological collections works, but there's no corresponding name for these cases; and the existing names correspond to parent categories (e.g. Category:Ancient Greece). I will add category explanations requiring that the museums be centred on the era or possess significant collections from it. If anyone is then willing to check and prune the contents, that would be welcome. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion criteria is simply too subjective. What percentage of a museum's collection needs to fall into this area to merit categorization? If you look at the categories for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not close to 50%! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a standard type of museum. We should categorize museums by broad type, not be specific type of collection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "this is not a standard type of museum" - not in America no doubt. Category:Museums by type is in fact large and well-established. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—At first glance I thought that this would be a category of Museums that the Ancient Romans had developed (possibly alongside the Circus). However, I'm disappointed to find that it's modern museums about Ancient Rome. So, rename would be the conclusion. But then I looked more closely at the inclusion criteria only to find that our private collection (which happens to have a few Roman coins) would qualify me to add our house to the category. This being the case, this is not a good way to categorise museums. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name or delete There were museums in ancient Rome? Who'd have guessed? Unless it's meant to say "Museums concerned with Ancient Rome", which is entirely different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have added Greece since it appears that the same reasons for deleting this one would also apply there. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly named category.Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I created both categories to help people looking for museums featuring collections related to Ancient Greece and Rome. The criteria can certainly be tightened and the categories better named to reflect the collections. There are many other categories that are broad enough for flexibility. Wikipedia should not be too rigid but should be used as a helpful guide. If you delete the categories, it will be harder to find museums relating to Ancient Greece and Rome. Jllm06 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featuring is subjective and not a good criteria for determining membership in a category. These categories came up when I happened on the MET article and there are about 11 different collection related categories. If we take your use of 'collections' or even 'featured collections', this is really subject material for a list rather then a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The nominator's rationale could be applied to any of the 100+ sub-categories of Category:Museums by type. There is nothing in the rationale which gives any reason why we cannot have a category of museums which relate to these two topics when we Category:Food museums, Category:Fossil museums, Category:Poetry museums, Category:Sports museums etc.
    A rename is needed to clarify the categories' scope, and some purging may be needed ... but Ancient Rome is clearly a defining characteristic of museums such as the Aquincum Museum and the Capitoline Museums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we limited these categories to museums that had this as their main attraction if would make sense, but we don't, so I think we should just scap these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, that is a concern. Following the MET example, I don't believe that anyone would not classify this in Category:Art museums in New York City. But should it also be in Category:Asian art museums in New York? I would say yes if there was a dedicated building for that purpose. And being in Category:Fashion museums in the United States could probably be challenged. The big problem is how do you devise an objective set of inclusion criteria for these? I think the two in this nomination are not really affected by these issues. However the others discussed here raise some interesting questions that I don't have answers for. I suspect that we will not and should not try to answer those questions here. I do think we need a separate discussion to see if in fact we need to do something and if so what. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Met should certainly be in Category:Asian art museums in New York because it has by far the best Asian collection in NY & it would be plain stupid & a disservice to users to have such a category and not include it. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This category (and some of these cited as parallels) are mixing up museums with Anceitn Roman material as part of their collections (a performance by performer type category) with museums solely (or mainly) about anciemt Rome. The latter with typically be excavated sites with a museum attached. The British Museum is in a subcategory, but its collections include ethnographic material from lost part of the world. On the other hand, Pompeii and Herculaneum will be solely about Ancient Rome (or rather the Roman Empire, or Roman period). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this should go the way of the dinosaur museum category. Really this is to fine a thing to categorize museums by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Museums of the Roman period and Category:Museums of Classical Greece but Purge (as I said above) to leave museums that are wholly or mainly concenred with that subject. Other museums (etc) are not specifically concerned with the Roman period, but cover a wide range of subjects. For these inclusion is tin the nature of a performacne by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but probably rename I don't really see the problems, except that large numbers of European provincial museums will eventually be here, as the vast amount of stuff the Romans left under the ground forms a great part of their collections, often the majority by object count, even if most of it is pottery in bits and coins. It would be foolish to exclude eg the Louvre, British Museum or Boston, which have some of the world's most important collections, even if Roman material still forms a minority of their collections. The "museums by type" categories normally take the very sensible approach of including wholly specialized museums plus more general museums with very important collections, like in this case those mentioned, and we should follow that here. No, Beeswaxcandle's house does not qualify. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which just leeds to a very large number of categories on some museums. We would be a lot better served by lists than categories here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2013 (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.

County Football Championships by 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: rename to Category:2008 senior Gaelic football county championships, Category:2009 senior Gaelic football county championships, Category:2010 senior Gaelic football county championships, and Category:2011 senior Gaelic football county championships. I'm going off the board here, because there's no agreement in the debate but a clear need for disambiguation in the category names. There is a category that serves as a guide, though: Category:Senior Gaelic football county championships. It seems obvious to me that simply appending a year in front of those creates the by-year division these categories are striving for, and allows them to be placed in the hierarchy better. If someone has a strenuous objection to this plan, nominate the new categories for renaming and we'll sort it out. (Also, I'm not sure about the capitalization of "senior." If that needs to change, nominate it on Speedy.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, since no one has commented yet, there exist four categories on their own with the format Year County Senior Football Championships, e.g. Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships. Now this seems overly specific altogether. Perhaps those categories should just be divided by year (the Sligo Intermediate Football Championship is in that category anyway). This would also rename these particular subcategories for consistency with the same parent category which is currently at Category:GAA County Championships and would allow the inclusion of hurling and intermediate football.
There aren't so many County Championships per year that they need be divided much further (as they currently are)
About 32 X 3 (senior, intermediate, junior) X2 (football and hurling) still equals less than 200.
Could the above be addressed by:

? Same as the naming format of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) with football at the end. Hurling could be done likewise if there was a need for it.

As for the notability of junior and intermediate levels - it depends. Based on what it says in their Wikipedia entries, to give two examples, Paul Galvin has won Kerry Junior Football Championships and Michael Murphy has won a Donegal Intermediate Football Championship. If, to take a soccer parallel, every competition in the English football league system has a Wikipedia entry (when the likes of Sergio Agüero and Wayne Rooney would likely never play in the North West Counties Football League or the Manchester Football League) why shouldn't the intermediate and junior championships in Gaelic football (which often feature the sport's major stars) be covered by Wikipedia if reliable sources can be unearthed? --86.40.105.141 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliable sources are found, then of course there can be articles on junior and intermediate levels. My point was imply that it less likely that reliable sources will be found for competitions at the lower levels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BHG. Brocach (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support that renaming (changing my !vote). It doesn't change the scope, but does remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this alternative proposal; as far as I am aware only the GAA organises county and provincial football championships throughout Ireland, all of which are named in the conventional format [name of county or province] [level of competition i.e. Minor, Under-21, Junior, Intermediate, Senior] Football Championship. I am not aware of a single case where an Australian Rules, American, soccer or other football championship is named in a way that could lead to confusion with the competitions that the GAA has run since the 1880s, but individual cases could be addressed by DAB pages. We have just had lengthy debates over the renaming of scores of articles about these GAA competitions away from the conventional format; we really don't need a similar set of changes to categories. Brocach (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 13 March 2013 (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:Muslim saints[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 some to Category:Sufi saints, then delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are no saints in Islam - we have no article Muslim saints (just as we have no Jewish saints or Scientology saints or Pagan saints). Why? Islam - unlike certain Christian denominations - does not have a centralized authority to determine "sainthood" much less one that would be applicable to all branches of Islam. Why? Because its not a theological concept as no orthodox Muslim would ever, EVER, EVER, pray to some "saint" for his or her intervention on the beseecher's behalf - it's blasphemy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading the article that comes closest to maybe discussing what this covers Wali I have to say that this does not work. The fact that I had to remove one of these people from a category that was explicitly for Christian Saints suggests the whole program is not in line with reality. Personally I think we maybe should wuetion having any saints categories, because being designated a saint boils down to a post-thumous award, and we discorage award categories. However there is no regular controlled system to designate Muslims as saints. Sufi leaders are respected by their followers, and their grave sites are respected, but I don't think that "saint" is the right or best term to capture this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I read the article Wali correctly, it is pretty clear that at least for Sunnis the Wali are not the profets, but a distinct group. Yet at least three of these people (Daniel, Ezekiel and Enoch) are recognized as Prophets by Islam (the fact that they were not Muslims at all, at least per most historic sources makes this tricky, or course we also have them in Christian Saints categories even thought they were not Christians per most historic sources either, so the whole matter is messy. Of course, the fact that the Anglican Saints category includes people involved in the counter-reformation, that is people who proactively fought Anglicanism, is the single fact that makes me think that we should rethink the whole Saints category). At some level I want to say "we do not have Category:Sinners, we should not have Category:Saints." I would argue that we should not have Category:Christian Saints, but should only categorize saints by specific Churches that recognize them, and there is no body that can claim to be "The Christian Church". However what is clear to me is that we can not have a general Muslim Saints category. We maybe could have more specific categories.
  • Comment There are some at least regionally recognized groups of holy people respected after their death in Islam. We have an article Wali Sanga which is on the men who are respected as the fathers of Islam in Indonesia. We also have Category:Wali Sanga. It is not in this category, and I don't think it should be. If we are going to have a parent category for respected people from multiple religious traditions, I think we should give it a name other than Saint. Saint is histirically tied to Christianity. A better name would be Category:People honored for their religiosity or something like that. However, I still think that at least in some cases it boils down to posthoumous awards. I am also not convinced that it is really always notable to the people so designated. I would actually argue that being named a Roman Catholic Saint for everyone born after 1 AD is probably notable, in part because they limit it to people who at least can be thught of to have been in some way part of what could be seen as Roman Catholic. The very fact that people designated as saints by Anglicans include people involved in the counter reformation would lead me to the view that it is not a notable trait for them, in fact in some cases it seems like a false categorization. I really think the saints categories should be listified. It is worth mentioning that someone is designated a saint by some group, but it is really not a defining trait for the biography of the person involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it is worth we have Category:Sufi saints, which is not, for reasons I really do not understand, a sub-cat of this cat. I have to wonder if in that case there might be a better way to describe these people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Sufi saints, then purge of (1) prophets such as Enoch and Samuel - who are pre-Muslim and also honoured by Christians and Jews - though they might go into a Muslim prophets category; (2) any Muslim (but non-Sufi) saints. My understanding is that only the Sufi branch of Islam has saints. However, I am not a Muslim, and will willingly stand corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bishr the Barefoot, Hazrat Sakhi Shah Chan Charagh, Nathar Shah, Sheikh Hussein (saint), Fatimah and Khidr are described as saints or saintly, but not as Sufi saints. I have recategorised a few others from Muslim saints to Sufi saints, but stopped now. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - doesn't seem defining or sourced. I note Category:Prophets_of_Islam which may be a better home for some of these.
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/2013_March_13&oldid=1148952822"