The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (1920-1929)

Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (1930-1939)

Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (1940-1949)

Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (1950-1959)

Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (1960-1969)

Category:U.S. Navy aircraft carriers (1970-1979)

Category:U.S. Navy escort aircraft carriers

More pieces of the unofficial renameings mentioned way below. Not sure where these went. Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States certainly looks right for the first one, but I see no "by year" US aircraft carrier categories in current use. Putting these up for either validation of the rename, or repudiation of it, in which case we'll need to find the articles. TexasAndroid 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Categories by decade for military equipment, and especially ships, are practically useless to most researchers. There may be value in listing ships by decade, but this would be better done as a list than a category. Generally, ships are notable by three things: their type, their era, and their nationality. Categorization by era is much more useful by recognizable period (i.e. World War II, etc.) than by arbitrary decade blocks. For example, most aircraft carriers built in the 1930s were used in (and historically notable for their use in) World War II, primarily during the 1940s. Joshbaumgartner 22:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Joshbaumgartner. Naval ships (and especially large ones, like carriers) are generally expected to operate for more than a single decade; if there is any value in these divisions, they would be better served by a list. siafu 18:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was the one who made these categories. Originally it was to line up with the aircraft categorizations but I would rather see it done by the more relevant military eras (WWII, Cold War, etc.) Oberiko 03:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:World War II military equipment -- Kbdank71 18:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories. It's all Military equipment, and it's all by nation, so proposed new name reflects both of these facts. TexasAndroid 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: I would recommend instead retaining Category:World War II military equipment as is and merging Category:World War II equipment by nation into it. Joshbaumgartner 22:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as proposed by Joshbaumgartner - TexasAndroid 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 22:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Unless British means Empire/Commonwealth (of Nations) GraemeLeggett 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 22:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 22:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 22:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 22:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Frigates of the United States Navy -- Kbdank71 18:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: Instead recommend Category:Frigates of the United States and Category:United States Navy frigates merge to Category:Frigates of the United States Navy to match Era Type User format of military equipment categories. Joshbaumgartner 23:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per Joshbaumgartner - TexasAndroid 13:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy -- Kbdank71 18:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories, merging into new category to expand abbreviation. TexasAndroid 16:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: Same as for frigates above, I recommend merging the two into Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy. Joshbaumgartner 23:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per Joshbaumgartner - TexasAndroid 13:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reverse merge -- Kbdank71 18:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: Not all auxiliaries are operated by the Navy, some are by the Coast Guard or even Army. Thus I recommend maintaining the more general Category:Auxiliary ships of the United States. With sufficient articles, a sub cat Category:Auxiliary ships of the United States Navy may be appropriate. Joshbaumgartner 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reverse Merge as per Joshbaumgartner. - TexasAndroid 14:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Battleships of the United States Navy -- Kbdank71 18:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: As with destroyers and frigates above. Joshbaumgartner 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per Joshbaumgartner, to Category:Battleships of the United States Navy - TexasAndroid 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy -- Kbdank71 18:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: As with destroyers and frigates above. Joshbaumgartner 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per Joshbaumgartner, to Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy - TexasAndroid 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 20:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories, but neither struck me as the right name. So proposing a new name to merge both into. TexasAndroid 16:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Any new category structure needs to reflect both country names, and even if I was forced to choose one name, I would choose Russia. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Russia and the Soviet Union are two distinct political entities. Much military equipment may be shared between them but not all. Some equipment will belong in both categories, while some will only belong in Category:Military equipment of Russia and some in Category:Military equipment of the Soviet Union. With more coming out that is specific to Russia and not relevant to the Soviet Union, I believe it is important to have distinction between the two, as well as not choosing one or the other to represent them both. Joshbaumgartner 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as above. CalJW 04:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree. This naming is more consistant for people searching by country name, as it avoids the ambiguity of national adjectives (American vs. United States...under A or U?). Joshbaumgartner 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree and add "Military equipment in of X" as the naming convention for subcats of Category:Military equipment by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree See the Polish entry above for more... Joshbaumgartner 22:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Contains many articles about ships which predate the existence of the United Kingdom. It is correct to have two categories, just as we have both Category:History of Britain and category:History of the United Kingdom. CalJW 04:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It is fair to break it down into category:Military equipment of the United Kingdom and category:Military equipment of Britain, but I still agree with moving to this format and deleting Category:British military equipment. Joshbaumgartner 07:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If the articles in question refer to military equipment of the Kingdom of Great Britain, then the correct name would be category:Military equipment of Great Britain; Britain sounds to me like a catch-all geographical term rather than a precise national term. If the intention is to use it as a vague catch-all, then it would be better to have category:Military equipment of the Kingdom of England, category:Military equipment of the Kingdom of Scotland etc. to refer to the various predecessor states of the UK rather than an imprecise catch-all. (The use of the word Kingdom follows the existing convention of the articles on these historical states). Valiantis 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree See the Polish entry above for more... Joshbaumgartner 22:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. This one is just my gut feeling of which direction this one should go. I'm persuadible that the other direction is proper. But one way or another, they need to merge, IMHO. TexasAndroid 15:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree Country is a more specific reference to a defined political state, whereas nation is a more general term for a political grouping. Granted, a matter of semantics to some degree, but I think country is the right way to go. Joshbaumgartner 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 21:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty Category. COvered by the category just below this one, I beleive. TexasAndroid 15:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Adequately covered by patrol boats below. Joshbaumgartner 23:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Move for consistency. TexasAndroid 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• If you're renaming things to "United States Navy" then this should be Category:World War II British Royal Navy patrol boats 132.205.45.110 16:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm actually trying to avoid pure renames, at this point. The thing is too much of a mess. I'm looking for duplicates to merge rather than renames. In general I wanted to use the merge votes to guage feelings of which direction things should go before I started trying to do pure renames to make everything more consistant. And there is a *lot* of inconsistency in all this stuff. "WWII Fooian things" ""WWII things of Foo", etc.
  • So, along those lines, right now the vast bulk of US Navy categories are already "United States Navy things". The British ones are not. For now, I'm trying to merge duplicates and guage opinions. I will definitely take your suggestion under consideration for the wave of renames I'm contemplating in a week or two, but for now I would prefer to stick with existing patterns. OTOH, there's nothing to prevent you from tagging the lot of British Navy categories and putting them up for rename yourself. I'm just not at that point myself yet. TexasAndroid 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 21:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• If you're renaming things to "United States Navy" then this should be Category:World War II British Royal Navy aircraft carriers 132.205.45.110 16:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If we go with the specific Royal Navy category, it should be Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy to be consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with that being that there are several "Royal Navies" and "Imperial Navies", "Republican Navies", "People's Navies", etc, so the country with which it belongs should be attached (even though in English, Royal Navy usually refers to the British one). 132.205.45.148 17:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • AIUI, there's only one " Royal Navy"; all the others are the "Royal Foolandian Navy". The Brits have a trademark or something. —wwoods 02:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, I believe the Swedish for one refer to their navy simply as Royal Navy as well. Most of the Commonwealth have their nation in the title (Royal New Zealand Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, etc.) but then they were set up by the British, so go figure. However, as valid as the point is, when speaking about the 'Royal Navy', unless specified, or otherwise identified by context or circumstance, in maritime circles it is by default the British one. Joshbaumgartner 07:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Well, I didn't mean the British derived navies of former colonies, I meant the navies of countries that had kings/queens/etc whereupon they would call their navy the National Navy or Royal Navy or just plain Navy. Like Royal Netherlands Navy, which in Dutch is Royal Navy. IIRC, Spain, when she was still an Imperial power of note, called her navy the Royal Navy... (When England was a land of pirates) 132.205.46.167 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree: This is consistant with the Era Type User form applied at the military equipment level, which these categories are subordinate to. Joshbaumgartner 22:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 21:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. (None of the other WWII ship categories have separate categories for "ships" and "naval ships"") - TexasAndroid 15:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Ultimately, if sufficient numbers exist, naval ships should be isolated as Category:World War II ships of (insert navy name). Joshbaumgartner 23:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Up until 1941 ships crewed by New Zealanders were part of the RN, thus making their ships British (Empire or Commonwealth) and neither UK nor NZ. GraemeLeggett 11:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 21:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category. TexasAndroid 14:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories. TexasAndroid 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. If going with Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy above, then may want to consider changing Category:World War II cruisers of the United States to Category:World War II cruisers of the United States Navy for consistancy. Joshbaumgartner 23:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Battlecruisers are a unique situation, as they bridge the gap between battleships and cruisers. They are often desribed as one, both, or either, depending on who is talking about them, and in some cases their own navies have reclassified them multiple times during their service (see the German pocket battleships for example). Additionally, battlecruisers have never been made in the quantities that cruisers or battleships have, meaning that any battlecruiser category is bound to be very small relatively. Thus I recommend that battlecruiser articles be categorized as both cruisers and battleships instead of maintaining a seperate battlecruiser tree of categories. Joshbaumgartner 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• KEEP, though battlecruisers were not plentiful, they still existed, as a class of ships whose guns outweighed their armor (fast enough to run from ships that could sink them, outgun ships with the same armor or worse)... though AFAIK, pocket battleships are just that, battleships, with the heavy armor of battleships, not the light cruiser armor of battlecruisers. 132.205.45.148 20:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

See entry below for explanation of this CFR. TexasAndroid 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. Joshbaumgartner 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

First of a number of situations where a user has been working through WWII military pages, and doing unofficial category renames. (Create new category, move articles, then orphan the old one.) I do not have a strong opinion on these myself, but they do need to go through official CFR, so I'm placing his moves up here. Please vote Merge if you agree with the move, or Reverse Merge if you think that the older naming is the proper one. TexasAndroid 14:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree: Consistant with Era Type User format. As the user in question, I have been enlightened to the CFD process and will be using it. I am interested in consolidating and clarifying the military equipment category tree under a simple format that is useable for all types of equipment. Seeing as most people look up an item by the era it was made/used, the type of item, and/or by the country which made/used it, those are the classifications I try and categorize each article by. Joshbaumgartner 23:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Only one cat needed, although Wikipedia:Reference_desk is capitalised thusly. MeltBanana 13:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It might be a forlorn hope to get these deleted, but the creation of sub-cats of Category:British screenwriters hasn't been that helpful. "Scottish screenwriters" contains only 3 articles, while English screenwriters are now divided between "English" and "British" (most of them are under "British screenwriters"). Using only Category:British screenwriters would bring this into line with Category:British film directors and Category:British film producers, otherwise its confusing, especially for non-British editors. JW 13:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep Have a look at Category:English writers and Category:Scottish writers and it is pretty clear that these two Screenwriters categories fit in well. The categories will easily be filled up. There are tons of English writers (backlog:159) and Scottish writers (backlog: 81) who have not been re-allocated to appropriate sub-categories yet, and even more at the vast Category:British writers (which currently has a backlog of 172 articles needing re-allocated to appropriate subcats).-- Mais oui! 13:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Subdivision in this way is standard for British people categories. Osomec 15:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was discussion moved to WP:SFD -- Kbdank71 20:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Soft redirect and move existing content to the standard named Category:Scotland-related stubs. Both were created on the same day by the same user, and they were clearly aware of the standard "Foo-related stubs" naming convention, because they pointed the non-standard Category:Scotland stubs towards the standard Category:Scotland-related stubs (incidentally, I notice that Category:Belarus stubs, and one or two others, have the same problem). This new supercat (there are three subcats: Scotland-geo-stub, Scotland-bio-stub and Hebrides-geo-stub) was subsequently noticed by someone at WikiProject Stub sorting, the discussion to which is here: WikiProject - Scotland-stub / Cat:Scotland-related stubs, but the course of action decided on was to reverse the redirect to point at the non-standard "Foo stubs". I embarked on putting it back the way it had originally been set up, but due to my pathetic "newbieness" I could not comprehend why the articles in Category:Scotland stubs did not magically shift over to Category:Scotland-related stubs. It was only at that point that I discovered the Wikiproject stub sorting discussion. In short, it is a mess at the moment, admittedly partly due to my own inexperience. Please provide your wise counsel. Mais oui! 12:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Should this be better discussed at Wikipedia:stub types for deletion? :-) — Insta ntnood 13:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Several problems with this one... Firstly, yes, it would more correctly be placed at WP:SFD. OTOH, it'd be best not being listed at all: both creations were done out-of-process (see WP:WSS/P); and more to the point, Category:Scotland stubs is the standard name (which the creator (and subsequent re-mover) would have been told, had they followed said process). Speedy keep, fix, repopulate, and delist. Alai 15:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• • " Category:Scotland stubs is the standard name... " That does not appear to be the case. If you have a look at Category:Africa-related stubs, Category:Central Asia-related stubs, Category:Russia-related stubs, Category:Faroe Islands-related stubs, Category:United Kingdom-related stubs, Category:Gibraltar-related stubs, Category:United States-related stubs, Category:Quebec-related stubs, Category:Pitcairn-related stubs, and hundreds of others, it is pretty clear that "foo-related stubs" is the standard format.-- Mais oui! 17:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • For an overview for the choice between Foo stubs and Foo-related stubs, see category:stubs by region. — Insta ntnood 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment Am I the only User that feels slightly uncomfortable with this "out-of-process" concept, cited by User:Alai above, which seems to be uniquely applied to the creation of stub categories? As far as I am aware, there is no application "process" for applying to create any other type of Wikipedia page: article or category. Who exactly authorised Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting to carry out this vetting procedure? Where is the discussion which led to this delegation of authority to an honoured group of Wikipedians? They have applied very un-Wikipedian notices to Category:Scotland-related stubs, and I presume many others, saying:

This category is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting. Please propose new stub templates and categories here before creation.

• • Is it because WP:WSS is a project for Wikipedia maintainence? — Insta ntnood 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I am not sure what you mean User:Instantnood. That link you provide ("project for Wikipedia maintainence") simply leads to the main Wikipedia:WikiProject page. There is absolutely nothing there to indicate that Stub sorting carries a unique authority within the Wikiproject system. From whence does this authority to vet, approve and reject applications to create categories derive? Can you point me in the direction of the discussion where this authority was delegated to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting?-- Mais oui! 20:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Is this really the place to discuss all that? Since you're blithely talking past the actual issues I've raised, continuing to populate the "-related" category anyway, and undoing all my attempts to "fix" things, it's not clear to what I can but to list the "other" category at WP:SFD. Your objection to the notice {{ WSS-cat}} is a little strange: you added it to that category, twice: after it was created, and again after I removed it (in the process of completely forgetting that redirects don't work in the category namespace). (Nor was it appropriate to add it, for the very reason it wasn't a WP:WSS creation.) Whether it's an "un-Wikipedian" template (again, pretty off-topic here) in some existential sense, you can hardly complain about its presence on that category... Alai 23:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

DUPLICATE DELETION DISCUSSION UNDERWAY AT WP:SFDWhat on earth is going on here? I thought that this was a little bit of a mess, but now a new deletion discussion has been initiated here: WP:SFD#Cat:Scotland-related_stubs. I would like to point out that my actions, and the history of these categories, are being misrepresented on that page.-- Mais oui! 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Then enter the debate there. After all, the debate here's irrelevant - it shouldn't be being debated here at all. What do you expect? That a stub type up for deletion wouldn't be discussed primatrily at stub types for deletion? Please read the note at the top of this page about stub categories (it's in Step 1 of "How to use this page"). Grutness... wha? 00:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay folks. Several things here.

1. The standard naming is Category:Foo stubs, as explained at the Stub wikiproject's naming conventions page, so the proposed move shouldn't occur from that point of view. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of categories that were either created before that naming convention was pout in place, or created from outside the wikiproject, that still have to be converted over.
2. All stub-related name changes and deletions are handled on a different page to this one, namely WP:SFD
3. WP:SFD is not part of WikiProject Stub sorting, and is as independent of it as this page or TFD or AFD. However, understandably, the stub sorting wikiproject is that part of wikipedia most associated with stub-related matters, and as such, is most vocal on that page.
4. The notice in the category is perfectly unnderstandable. It is to stop new categories being created out of process. A similar notice exists on other pages relating to stubs on Wikipedia. It doesn't always work - a lot of the time newbies will completely ignore these instructions and go ahead and make new stub categories anyway, but it is an attempt. An analogy is not with the history project having a notice in history categories, but more analogous to that project having invisible text in its templates saying "please do not alter this template without first checking with WikiProject History" - which would be perfectly understandable.

The main problem with anyone being able to create new stub categories is that, because stub typoes are an aid for the editor as much as, or more than, the reader, it is important to keep categories to maintainable sizes and in some maintainable order. It would be impossible to sort stubs into categories if new stub categories were able to be created willy-nilly without having some central record of what there was and where, and it would be completely pointless to have them created in such a way that one stub article could theoretically have any of twenty or thirty different stub templates. As such, one group of around 100 dedicated wikipedians spends an inordinate amount of time trying to maintain the stub categories in some semblance of clear and practical order. The wikiproject doesn't ghave any special authority, per se, but most people who have spent any great time here realise that the stub categories need to be kept in some form of order, and if WP:WSS is willing to devote a huge amount of energy to doing that then they should be allowed to do so. Before the WikiProject was created, all stub articles were simply marked with {{ stub}} - 20,000+ articles in one category - and no-one could easily find anything. With the expansion of Wikipedia, there are now close to 100,000 stubs, but they have been sorted in ways that aid editors greatly. In other wirds, it isn't a right of the project, but it's seen as such an advantage by many wikipedians that it's l9ogical that it's handled in that way. Grutness... wha? 23:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Films in Cantonese -- Kbdank71 15:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Drop the unnecessary hyphen. Edit dropped "language" too to avoid contentious issues over the status of Chinese languages/dialects-- Huaiwei 09:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Do not agree the suffix "-language" tells anything about whether it's a language or a dialect. It only tells this is a classification based on linguistics, not geography or people. — Insta ntnood 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There is a reason why "language" was dropped from almost all articles related to the Chinese language and replaced by "(linguistics)". Your claim that this is a non-issue contradicts what has been agreed upon.-- Huaiwei 10:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That is exactly why the hyphen makes a difference. — Insta ntnood 10:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • What kind of magical effect does the hyphen make to nuetralise this issue?-- Huaiwei 11:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • The hyphen means it's only a suffix, to make the word an adjective. — Insta ntnood 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Does this being an adjective solve the issue of whether the Chinese language family is one language with the rest dialects, or a family of related languages?-- Huaiwei 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It seems like criteria above is not met. #4 addresses "by country", and there is already a Category:Chinese films to cover the country. Since the issue is one of language, and not nationality, this fails the speedy test in my eyes, and should be taken up as a normal CFD. Neier 14:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Erm...pardon me, but #4 refers to?-- Huaiwei 18:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • The no.4 criterion listed above. — Insta ntnood 19:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Right. That is from when this was listed as a speedy CFD. Now that it has been moved to the normal CFD, it is not important. Neier 21:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • All dialects are languages, and all languages are dialects. The use of the word "dialect" is only meaningful in reference to a language's relation to other, closely-related languages; however it's completely inaccurate to say that someone speaking Cantonese (or Taisan, or Shanghainese, or whatever) is not speaking a language. siafu 13:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. — Insta ntnood 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment. - What about "Films in Cantonese", (and, to stir an even larger hornet's nest) "Films in English", "Films in Russian", etc. Mostly unrelated to this request, but IMHO the Category:Films by language area needs some work, since Category:Canadian films is a sub-cat of both the English and French language film cats. Neier 21:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Hm....your suggestion does sound very good. Perhaps we can start another CFR nomination for all categories in there?-- Huaiwei 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, the Films by language hierarchy is confused. Films by country and Films by language should be two separate hierarchies. If further subcats are required then, with reference to your example, Category:French-language Canadian films should be a subcat of Category:Canadian films and Category:French-language films, whilst Category:English-language Canadian films would be a subcat of Category:Canadian films and Category:English-language films. Sounds like a mini-project over the weekend :) I don't have especially strong feelings on this, but I prefer Fooian-language films to Films in Fooian. It just sounds better to my ears. Valiantis 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I would prefer Neier's version, because it means we do not really need to argue over the language/dialect debate anymore as the linguistic aspect is already implied (Films in English usually is implied to mean Films in the English language). There is also a general move towards Foo in XXX in wikipedia with regards to non-living objects.-- Huaiwei 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • That is true when it applies to the choice between Foo = country name or Fooian = nationality adjective. That does not set a precedent when Fooian = name of a language. The precedent would be set (for example) by Category:Literature by language in which all but one of the subcats takes the form Fooian literature (generally where the language name is not also a nationality adjective, e.g Urdu) or Fooian-language literature (generally where the language name is also a (more restrictive) nationality adjective, e.g. German). However, that distinction being made, on reflection I think that the current practice is flawed and that there is a lot to be said for Films in Fooian (where Fooian = language name) and I've changed my vote accordingly. Valiantis 11:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Films in Cantonese as my official vote (no longer just a comment). Neier 13:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Canton is not a country, so this category only exists because the films are in a specific language/dialect. CalJW 04:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Your reasoning does not seem to explain why "language" should stay, since you claim "Cantonese" in this aspect would be refering to a "language" anyway? You sound like you are supporting rather than opposing it.-- Huaiwei 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • As Valiantis has pointed out below, the suffix "-language" only indicates this adjective is about the lingual aspect, without mentioning if they are languages or dialects. — Insta ntnood 13:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I would think you misunderstood what Valiantis meant. What he is saying, is that while "XXX language films" could also mean a film on the XXX language, "XXX-language films" is much clearer in telling the reader that is a film in the XXX language. He made no comment on the language or dialect issue which was the main reason for nomination.-- Huaiwei 13:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • To clarify, my comment below in the "Chinese-language movies" section was a comment on punctuation only. As for whether Cantonese is a language or a dialect as far as films are concerned, I would argue that Cantonese is a language because language in films is primarily spoken rather then written. Cantonese films have to be dubbed (or subtitled) for Mandarin audiences. However, I make no claims to more than general knowledge in this area. Given that I do not consider "Cantonese-language" to be an incorrect term, I prefer Category:Cantonese-language films over Category:Cantonese films as it avoids ambiguity. Valiantis 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
          • But this collides with the agreement set out amongst contributors to Chinese language related articles who decided to drop "language/dialect" altogether to avoid further contestations on this issue. There is a reason why it is Cantonese (linguistics), and it is in Category:Cantonese (linguistics). No other article or category calls it a language or dialect, and this category is departing from that agreement.-- Huaiwei 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
            • To repeat what I have said, the "-language" suffix is not indicating whether it's a language or a dialect. The title "Cantonese-language" is not calling Cantonese a language (or a dialect). It's not implying that either. Saying "a two-and-a-half-kilometre path" is not implying half a kilometre is a kilometre. — Insta ntnood 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
            • This may be the case. However, this is primarily a category about films that happen to be in Cantonese, not a category about Chinese language(s). Until such time as this agreement becomes hard WP policy then I'm not sure tangentially-related categories are under an obligation to keep to it. (BTW, Cantonese (linguistics) is a horrible compromise; it applies that Cantonese is a specialist term in the science of linguistics that has to be disambiguated from its use in other fields, rather than the standard dab between Fooian (the people who speak a language or dialect) and Fooian (the language or dialect they speak)). Valiantis 11:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose As per CalJW Valiantis 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Rename Category:Films in Cantonese as per Neier. On this specific issue avoids debate (wholly political rather than scientific) on whether Cantonese is a language or a dialect; as a general rule for Category:Films by language it means no-one need worry whether the language label needs to be delineated to avoid ambiguity with a nationality label. Valiantis 11:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Films in Cantonese. siafu 13:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Films in Chinese -- Kbdank71 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Drop the unnecessary hythen.-- Huaiwei 08:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC) (dropping original nomination request in favour for a new suggestions as below)-- Huaiwei 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The hyphen may or may not be necessary, depending on different people and different style. — Insta ntnood 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • So is this an opposition or proposition? The only other similar category, Category:Russian language films, dosent come with it either.-- Huaiwei 10:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Please take a look at category:operas by language and category:poets by language, for instance. — Insta ntnood 10:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • My bad. Care to rename all categories in Category:Writers by language then?-- Huaiwei 11:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I said it depends. — Insta ntnood 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It seems like criteria above is not met. #4 addresses "by country", and there is already a Category:Chinese films to cover the country. Since the issue is one of language, and not nationality, this fails the speedy test in my eyes, and should be taken up as a normal CFD. Neier 14:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. — Insta ntnood 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Current form is correct. CalJW 04:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Removing the hyphen would be poor English usage and make for ambiguity. "Chinese-language films" clearly means "films in the Chinese language" (I am leaving aside any debate as to whether Chinese is a language or a group of languages as the hyphenisation has no impact on this issue). However, "Chinese language films" may mean "films in the Chinese language" or it may mean "films about language from China" (or similar). Valiantis 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I see your logic. I would close this nomination, then, and propose that we also correct all relevant categories with missing hyphens?-- Huaiwei 13:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I would support this. I note however that Instantnood is of the opinion that the hyphen is optional. I think you could make an argument for this, but I also believe that the ambiguity of not using the hyphen should be avoided. Valiantis 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I believe it's more correct to use the hyphen, but I'm fine to get along with those without it. — Insta ntnood 20:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Films in Chinese. Without withdrawing my comments on correct punctuation, Neier's suggestion above strikes me as a more elegant solution to all subcats of Category:Films by language, so I'm changing my vote here for the sake of consistency. Valiantis 11:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Films in Chinese, adding my vote here more or less as a formality. Neier 13:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Films in Chinese as per Neier and Valiantis.-- Huaiwei 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Films in Chinese. siafu 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 19:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This isn't a legitimate category. It's one individual's poorly-written list of a few politicians and movie stars who aren't veterans but are sometimes cited as/mistaken as such. No references are given. It's also not organized as a category, and the only actual entry under "subcategories" is a mis-classification. Alsorises 02:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Funny though. Is it too POV to become a list? JW 11:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete (shakes head in wonder):

  Me: "Excuse me sir, don't I know you from somewhere?"

  Brad Pitt: "Well, possibly..."

  Me: "Aren't you a colonel?"

  Grutness... wha? 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I guess this precludes my plans for a Category:Wikipedians mistaken for other people, celebrity and otherwise :( Sherurcij 07:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete DeNiro in Da Nang... siafu 18:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.