The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No opinion, but found this in the emptied category. This, along with others in Category:Open air museums in Wales appear to have been emptied out of process. Given the large number involved and the smallish content, it needs a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFAICS, all the subcats of Category:Open air museums in Wales were emptied out-of process of 27 September by Sionk. It is quite wrong to empty categories in this way; if an editor thinks that sub-categorisation has gone a step too far, the solution is nominate the relevant categories for upmerger, rather than just emptying them unilaterally. However, I do think that number of open-air museums in Wales is far too small to justify sub-categorisation. There appear to be only 7 in total. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (presumably the other 'Category:Open air museums in [Welsh County Borough]' can be speedied at some point?) on the basis that these are yet another example of unnecessary over-categorisation by User:Skinsmoke. They seem to be fairly uncontroversial exampes of over-categorisation unless someone knows of a mass creation of outdoor museums in Wales in the near future. Sionk (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they do appear to be uncontroversially so. But that's still no reason to unilaterally depopulate them, without giving editors an opportunity to object if they so wish. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been multiple CfD's for Skinsmoke's categories, all agreeing they are wrong. To be honest, it takes seconds to create a category but weeks of everyone's time to remove them if they are all taken to CfD. There's something wrong with this system somewhere! Sionk (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CFD process may last a few weeks, but it doesn't take weeks of anyone's time to nominate a few categories or to comment on a discussion. Caution in removing an editor's work is an important part of editor retention, and any resulting frustration is part of the price we pay for having an anyone-can-edit project. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy the other five emply sub-cats of Category:Open air museums in Wales. If there are articles that might go in them, it would be better to put them directly in the Wales category and also into museums in Foo Borough. I would have voted upmerge, if they were not empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 14 October 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator’s rationale: the personnel branch was recently renamed, and the main article was moved. The category should be moved to match. Indefatigable (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, of course. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 14 October 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.
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorise experimental aircraft by conflict; indeed, by their very nature, an aircraft that is 'experimental' is not defined by a war; if it was used in the war, it's defined by the role in which it is used. Also WP:OC/duplicates to the "Fooian experimental aircraft 1940–1949" categories. No upmerge necessary; all articles checked to be sure they are already appropriately categorised. Also edges into "performer by performance" areas. The BushrangerOne ping only 13:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Any nomination that begins with "We don't categorise" is usually dead wrong and this one is completely and totally incorrect. Maybe we shouldn't use this as a category, but that's a matter that needs to be determined based on appeals to Wikipedia policy, not a bald -- and blatantly false -- assertion of fact . The problem is that the real world does categorize aircraft in this matter, such as in the published works Luftwaffe X-Planes: German Experimental and Prototype Planes of World War II and Japanese Secret Projects: Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945 among an extensive bibliography of books and articles written on the subject, as well as a seemingly never-ending stream of television programs on the subject, such as Secret Luftwaffe Aircraft of WWII and Secret Russian Aircraft of World War II. These aircraft were deliberately developed for potential use in combat during World War II, and organizing these projects by the specific military conflict for which they were developed is a far more logical and effective aid to navigation than decade-based categories that arbitrarily divide a craft designed in December 1939 from one that was developed in January 1940. The real-world use of the categorization scheme trumps an argument for deletion based entirely on a mere assertion. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An assertion based on what we actually do here on Wikipedia - you'll notice that, looking at the category tree we...well, don't categorise by this. (Also sensationalist "Napkinwaffe" TV programs, it should be noted, are not reliable sources.) And regardless of your regarding of that, it doesn't change the fact that this is WP:OC that duplicates existing categories; perhaps we could categorise this way, but we shouldn't. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion might have some value if it weren't false. Just to pick one example, the article for Heinkel He 178, is included in trees for Category:World War II experimental aircraft of Germany and Category:World War II jet aircraft of Germany, and is documented in such works as The Hamlyn Concise Guide to British Aircraft of World War II (ISBN 0‐600‐34967‐5), Concise Guide to Axis Aircraft of World War II (ISBN 0‐600‐35027‐4) and German Aircraft of the Second World War (ISBN 0-85177-836-4). This article already includes a structure for aircraft of World War II and is backed up entirely by real-world published reliable and verifiable sources about World War II aircraft (not 1930-1939 aircraft). I haven't found any works that cover aircraft within the arbitrary range of January, 1, 1930, to December 31, 1939, and the entire decadal cutoff is the essence of arbitrary overcategorization, as a scheme that should only be used in the absence of any other meaningful means of grouping. Nor can I conceive of any reason why an aircraft designed in December 1939 differs in any meaningful way from one created in January 1940, both of which belong together as having been created for use during World War II. What we actually do is group aircraft by the specific conflict for which they were created / intended, and this is how people out in the real world categorize such aircraft. Category:World War II experimental aircraft of Germany is part of Category:World War II aircraft of Germany, which falls into an extremely well-defined structure for Category:Military aircraft of World War II, which couldn't any more clearly demonstrate that this is exactly what we do. I understand WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I see no legitimate reason justifying deletion of a grouping by a rather strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if it you would strike your accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as that has absolutely nothing to do with this nomination. The fact is we don't categorise experimental aircraft by conflict, as can be seen by examining the category tree - the He 178, to use your example, was not created for, intended for, or used in World War II in any way, shape, or form. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we categorize production aircraft within a World War II structure, and then arbitrarily split a corresponding group of experimental aircraft into separate groupings for 1930-1939 (together with antiquated biplanes) and 1940-1949 (together with Cold War designs) aircraft? I assume that in your categorization scheme that the He 178 was created merely as a 1930-1939 aircraft. Again, the ignorance of the real-world categorization of such aircraft in hundreds upon hundreds of reliable and verifiable sources fundamentally undermines the rationalization for deletion and the fact that we do categorize aircraft of World War II in Wikipedia is undeniable. Like it or not, there's no legitimate argument for deletion of a rather clear defining characteristic and aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, it is because production aircraft were actually used on the conflict - however, comparing this to the WP:OTHERSTUFF is a fundamentally flawed argument, as aircraft by conflict (indeed, military equipment by conflict) is a category tree that is being phased out due to being a performer by performance categorization scheme. - The BushrangerOne ping only 13:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WW2 experimental aircraft may be a good topic for books and it is a combination of characteristics that we could categorize by, but it's an unnecessary complication to the category tree - it's the only experimental aircraft by war category and it doesn't fit neatly under Ww2 cats. If kept, it needs clear inclusion criteria. DexDor (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If we have articles we should categorise them, but since there is only one Italian article, perhaps we should merge that to the parent. I note that there are no UK or US categories, but I cannot believe there is nothing to populate a category for each. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm...not sure what the first part of your comment means. Yes, they should be categorised - and are, already, appropriately, elsewhere. - The BushrangerOne ping only 15:40, 14 October 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:École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename all. No consensus to delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. See the first sentence of the article in English and the article in French. This is the official name of the university. Lette Sgo (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - The situation is not as straightforward as official-versus-common name; and, unfortunately, the RM discussion that resulted in the article's current title was full of incomplete and incorrect information. Some of the problems included a failure to realize that French is an official language of Switzerland (in addition to German and Italian), excessive deference to the first page of Google results, and misapplication of WP:NCCAPS, which states for "expressions borrowed from other languages": (1) follow English-language capitalization if the expression "has been adopted in English as a loan word"; (2) mimic the usage found in most English-language reliable sources if the topic is a creative work (e.g., book, song, etc.); and (3) follow the native language's capitalization practice if the "expression is untranslated (not a loan word)". The official, French-language name of the university is École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, and it is used by English-language sources; however, many English-language sources also use École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Financial Times, Space.com), Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL, Forbes), and Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL, BBC News). -- Black Falcon(talk) 16:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Honorary degree recipients of ..." -- No opinion about the school renaming or not. However, "honorary degree recipients" is WP:OCAT#overcategorization by award. People's connections with the school may be tangential at best, and it's not a good category. Instead, I recommend creating a list of "honorary degree recipients from ...", and linking everyone there. (That will also make it possible for us to correctly reference this information.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support generally -- I think we should use the English convention on capitalisation. I agree that we should delete the Honorary degree category per WP:OC#AWARD, but that would be better done by a mass cull, rahter than piecemeal. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bushranger. For what it's worth, whenever this issue comes up at RM (capitalization of European university names), consensus has favored English-language capitalization. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we use English capitali(z/s)ation for the English WP. We have precedents... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the honorary degrees category per WP:OC, no opinion on the others. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:00, 20 October 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.
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.
Delete this is but one race of a series; not a final or championship. Yes, it's big, but each year there are numerous "big" races in F1, Nascar, Indy, etc. Plus big golf tourneys, tennis tourneys, basketball tourneys, and big football games, rivalries, conferences, brackets....and no doubt other sports. It goes on, but it's performer by performance something we've gelled on since 2008's result. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories should be used for more general uses, like nationality and activity. To list race winners, the best it to use the "Winners" section of articles, where there's also information like car and team. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the type of award category we should avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 18 October 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.
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:Cleaned up per last suggestion. That case best best addresses the issues raised in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. There has been a new Superman short recently released called Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam by WB studio. The purpose of the rename is to avoid confusion what the short films from Fleischer Studios and that particular one from the Warner Bros and its future releases.NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not a big fan of long-string category names like the suggestion. In the absence of any but one Superman animated short not from Fleisher my inclination would be to re-parent the existing category to remove it from the Fleisher tree, add the Fleisher short articles to appropriate Fleisher categories and simply add the new short to this category. Otherwise we have no place to categorize Superman/Shazam as a Superman animated short unless we create a single-item category for it, which I oppose per WP:SMALL. If this category must be renamed then make it Category:Fleisher Studios animated Superman short films to match logical parent Category:Fleischer Studios short films. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, it was just what I came up. But if anyone got a better idea, feel free to say and do so. The reason of the rename is to avoid confusion with the animated short films from Fleisher and those from WB. Even though, for now, there are only one short film from WB, sources say that there will be more DC Comics based short films as DC Showcase, to tell stories about Batman, Wonder Woman, Robin, and of course, Superman. See this category Category:DC Showcase as there are already a number of DC Showcase films from WB.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:51, 6 October 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, -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; instead remove category from Category:Fleischer Studios short films, add existing contents to that category, and then add Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam to this category. "Superman animated shorts" is a defining and category-worthy feature, but "Superman animated shorts by Foo" is WP:OC. I usually lean torwards "one precise category" when possible, but this is a case where "two slightly broader categories" better services the Wikipedia reader's needs, I believe. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:52, 13 October 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.
