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. Timrollpickering 11:25, 22 August 2018 (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:speedy move. czar 20:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article Rathfelder (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder, there are plenty of books that fit this category (added to three, at the moment). If you would retract this nom, I'd repurpose/move the category to "Ethnographic studies of education", which would have a wider/more applicable scope. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:25, 12 August 2018 (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 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: Only featured one subcategory, which wasn't even an accurate subcategory, so I removed it. The only existing subcategory that *could* accurately be placed here is Category:United States Army Special Forces in films. I'm sure that there are films featuring non-American special forces, and if categories ever get made for those films, then having a "Films about special forces" parent category could be useful. But for the time being, having both of these categories is redundant. --Jpcase (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's about UKSF. There's also articles such as The Cockleshell Heroes that may predate the term "special forces", but would fit the definition. DexDor(talk) 16:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also - I'm not a military expert and can't say for sure what the term "special forces" refers to outside the US. In the American military, "Special Operations Forces" refers to various groups within the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, while "Special Forces" exclusively refers to a single group within the Army. I'm pretty sure that most other countries use the term "Special Forces" synonymously with how the US uses the term "Special Operations Forces". So an explanation of what's covered under Category:Films about special forces should probably be added to the top of that page, if the category is kept. --Jpcase (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers the usual problems of the "films about" categories: objectively define how much about special forces a film must be to be included, and what reliable sources say it's at least that much. Moreover, "special forces" is itself an ill-defined concept: are SS-Sonderkommandos and Einsatzgruppen included? what about James Bond 007 or Jason Bourne or Jack Ryan? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, then I would suggest renaming it Category:Special forces in films, that way we could avoid debates over whether a film is *about* special forces, and instead, the category could simply include any films that *feature* special forces. I agree that "special forces" is a nebulous term though, so there would certainly have to be some discussion over what the category's scope should be. --Jpcase (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete for this particular reason (while I'm neutral about deleting for other reasons) and oppose alternative name. "Films about" is exactly right, as the category is about categorizing films for which this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2018 (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:delete. ℯxplicit 05:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories are for grouping articles about similar topics - not for grouping articles whose title has a particular characteristic (see, for example, the loanwords CFDs). For example, the article about the Trilby should be, and is, in Category:Hats, but does not need to be categorized with articles such as Plimsoll shoe and Richard Nixon mask. If the Wellington boot article was named Rubber boot (as it is in Fr wp, De wp etc) then presumably it wouldn't be eligible to be in the category. See also previous CFDs (e.g. in July). DexDor(talk) 14:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There are enough articles about pieces of clothing named after people to at least group them together in some form or another. - User:Kjell Knudde, 17:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The nom isn't about SMALLCAT. DexDor(talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that clothing items are named from people is of interest, not something casual. The Wellington boot was originally of leather and was closely linked to the 1st Duke. Rubber is a more recent discovery. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a good reason for mentioning the etymology in the articles (or linking to Wiktionary), but is it really a defining characteristic of the topic? And do articles about shoes, hats etc belong in Category:Linguistics etc? DexDor(talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there should be a specific named policy against this sort of category, which is collecting together articles based on the name of the article rather than its topic. WP:SHAREDNAME is close. Oculi (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the eponymous aspect is insufficiently defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2018 (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:Keep. Timrollpickering 11:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All these schools were in India when they were founded, and all but one still are. Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question what is a railway school? I would have imagined that these schools have a particular curriculum to educate children to become railway employees, but the articles do not support that hypothesis. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why a school in Bangladesh should be deemed to be in India. The article Railway Schools gives the background. Oculi (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the one school had closed while still part of India, I'd go along. But Bangladesh is a separate country now and readers wouldn't expect to find that article under an Indian cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These were schools founded under the British Raj, associated with railway lines, settlements for railway employees. They offered education to the children of railway employees. Possibly the target should be Category:Railway Schools in South Asia to encompass the Bangladesh case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is needed to group the pages of different countries.Shyamsunder (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2018 (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: A US name for middle schools. Middle schools are inherently an uncertain concept. Calling them elementary doesn't seem helpful or defining. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2018 (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:merge and delete. ℯxplicit 05:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just a single article in every category. Note that this is not a nomination to discuss anachronism (Germany versus Holy Roman Empire), for such a discussion there should be a nomination of centuries and decades as well. The only thing that will happen with this proposal is that Germany and the Holy Roman Empire will become consistently categorized (i.e. by decade in the Middle Ages, by year thereafter), which might be of help to set up a future anachronism discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I hope this will be followed up by one to rename/merge the Germany categories to Holy Roman Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and I share Peterkingiron's hope about the rename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into Holy Roman Empire categories.GreyShark (dibra) 19:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to HRE per Greyshark. Tim! (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2018 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 12#Category:Education enrollment. ℯxplicit 05:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
