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: This is not a defining characteristic, just a familiar relationship to a fairly common rank
Reywas92Talk 23:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete -- It may count when it comes to precedence, but for the most part this is a NN characteristic.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a princess, not defining. --
Mvqr (
talk) 12:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete just an invitation to clutter biographical articles even more. I challenge anyone to name one person who is notable for this fact.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:36, 4 April 2022 (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:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter
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. With the exception of the nominator, there is unanimous numerical consensus that this category is useful for maintenance purposes. No convincing
WP:PAG-based argument has been brought up to
WP:DISCARD the "Oppose" !votes or consider this a
local consensus. The page contents can be discussed on the cat's talk page, at
Template talk:Infobox television or at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Consensus can change and the category can be renominated for deletion in the future if, for instance, consensus is reached that this maintenance task should not performed.
(non-admin closure)JBchrchtalk 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No consensus.
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Per discussion at
Template talk:Infobox television#Bot needed, there may not be consensus for the category or that the condition it tracks is a problem. Category instructions state that under these conditions (clarify: the |name= parameter being the same as the article title) the parameter should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically while the
infobox documentation states that the parameter Need not be used under these circumstances, suggesting it is optional. Discussion has indicated that while technically unneeded, the parameter has been useful to some editors. Meanwhile, the existence of the category has been taken as implied consensus for editors to perform thousands of edits. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is much more consensus among TV editors that this parameter should be removed than there is against it. The discussion there hasn't closed yet you jump ahead there? Your summarize of the discussion there is also incorrect - the parameter has been useful to some editors is plainly false, which you would know if you even edited TV articles (It's a bit strange seeing someone who as far as I can remember has never edited in the TV project pages come about with this deletion, which while that's your right, it's also my right to point that it does not look good). Also, regardless of this category or not, removing the parameter would still be possible and allowed. Also, is there a reason you haven't followed proper procedural and actually notified the category creator (me) of this discussion? Or is this yet another thing you do out of process?
Gonnym (
talk) 22:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion on the nomination itself, but in reply to you haven't followed proper [procedure]... there is no mandate for notifying a page creator when their page has been nominated for deletion. I don't know why everyone (i.e. this is not a statement that only Gonnym has made) seems to think it is required.
Primefac (
talk) 07:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry that this doesn't sit right with you. I thought this forum might attract more discussion (editors can discuss, it's right there in the name) and be more likely to turn up relevant guidelines and policy. As for the personal comments (
Wikipedia:Ad hominem) I won't take that
bait. I'll just suggest that all editors are equal and that it is more productive to discuss edits rather than editors. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 11:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please link to discussion of the consensus or state a reasoning (consensus isn't just saying you have consensus, nor is it a vote). If there is consensus that it be removed, why is this not reflected in the infobox instructions? –
Reidgreg (
talk) 11:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
You mean, other than Need not be used if the name is the same as the article title as the infobox handles this automatically?
Gonnym (
talk) 05:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to patronize you, but you really don't seem to be grasping this. It says "Need not be used" – not "should not be used", "don't use it" or "remove it if present". Its use is optional, not discouraged, and certainly not prohibited. There are plenty of things which are technically unnecessary which are still of value to the encyclopedia and the Wikipedia community. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Gonnym's argument above. Couldn't have said it better myself. This maintenance category is fine. —
Paper LuigiT •
C 22:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what the opposers are agreeing to in the category creator's first paragraph. Is it There is much more consensus among TV editors? To me, "more consensus" sounds a lot like split/mixed/partial consensus, which is essentially 'no consensus'. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 03:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Good thing that you aren't closing discussions then. Unanimously ≠ consensus.
Gonnym (
talk) 05:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as nom or alter text: This may boil down to the word should on the category page (full context at top). It is used to recommend an editing practice in Wikipedia's voice, which makes it look an awful lot like a guideline or the summary of a guideline. Guidelines require discussion and a high level of consensus (
WP:PROPOSAL). Template messages that the categorized pages need "attention en masse" [or] to be edited at someone's earliest convenience reinforce the implication that there is broad consensus and encourages editors to quickly make edits without consideration of the merits (or drawbacks) of doing so. I'm not aware of any procedure for creating tracking categories (I failed to find such) but it seems there's been a serious misstep here. Is a category page the right place to recommend/initiate topic-wide editing practices? I haven't seen this on other tracking categories. It can link to a relevant guideline and summarize it, when such exist. In the absence of such, I feel that it should have a disclaimer like {{
essay}}, change "should be removed" to "it may be removed with local consensus", have the category creator's signature to indicate it is a personal recommendation, or just delete it.
Note to closer: I would greatly appreciate a clear explanation for the close. Thanks. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The category page's wording can be revised to include a more liberal should in this case. The sentence in question, "Usages should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically", can be changed to something like, "When this parameter matches PAGENAMEBASE, the |name= parameter is redundant, and it can safely be removed as long as it does not conflict with readability or accessibility for editing the article." This would give more discrepancy to editors on when to remove the parameter, but it would not greatly limit them if they chose to remove it. —
Paper LuigiT •
C 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd agree that's a step in the right direction, though I feel this should be more of a disclaimer than a recommendation because we do not have a 'high level of consensus'. Let me be clear, I am not talking about "limiting" what editors can do. Any editor can make any edit they want, even contravening guidelines. The problem is that the category's recommendation has been taken as carte blanche for
mass edits with little thought (eg: I was only following orders). I want editors to be thoughtful and responsible, not limited. I also don't like seeing guideline-creation policy being circumvented, and I feel we'd be party to that if we aren't careful here. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (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:Marvel Comics angels
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: To make it simple and to the point: Marvel is not in the game of using Angel characters. This category has only 4 articles. And even within those...
Warren Worthington III is a mutant with wings who uses "Angel" as a codename, not an Angel as we understand the idea (a servant of God sent to Earth).
Zarathos is a demon and I really do not understand what is he doing in that category to begin with.
Angela (character) was an Angel only while published by Image; she is an "angel" in Marvel as well but that's a thing of its own, related to
Asgard (comics) and divorced from the common idea of an angel (see
here for in-universe info about the "Angels of Heven"). It may still fit in the category, but reinforces my point. And that leaves just
Janus (Marvel Comics), the only character Marvel Comics created as an Angel, a character from the semi-obscure The Tomb of Dracula comic from the 1970s. In short, a category with 4 articles, and they may be just 2 if we do cleanup.
Cambalachero (
talk) 13:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, will be a smallcat if it is cleaned up.--
Mvqr (
talk) 12:53, 4 April 2022 (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:Characters created by James Gunn
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: James Gunn did not create any of these characters. At best we can say that he adapted these characters, but we don't have
Categories:Characters adapted by creator category system.
Gonnym (
talk) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: I checked some articles about film superheroes and they do not seem to have "created by" categories.
Cambalachero (
talk) 00:37, 3 April 2022 (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:Ethnic Armenian people by religion
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:merge as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A second subcategory would be unneeded because all ethnic Armenians are Christians unless specified otherwise.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (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:NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series
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 series hasn't gone by the Mello Yello name since the early parts of October 2020.
Shiningpikablu252 (
talk) 05:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, also could have been sent to speedy.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 04:05, 4 April 2022 (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:Bells (instrument)
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.
Comment --
Bell (disambiguation) has a lot of alternative uses, but most are derivative. In response to
Marcocapelle the two items mentioned are already in the category and properly so.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
That is odd, because the article
Bell is about a percussion instrument.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well hmm. I'm looking over
Bell (disambiguation) and I think most of the signal bells could also be considered musical instruments -
Church bells for one example. And are we differentiating between physical bells (metal, wooden, etc) and items which electronically or artificially create a bell-like sound? And thinking about some doorbells, are
chimes bells? (
Chimes redirects to
Tubular bells.) Maybe create
Category:Bells as a container cat, and subcat as appropriate? I dunno. Maybe not. Trying to think of a better general use disambiguator than "instrument". If we said Bells (percussion), would we now be adding
xylophones and such? - jc37 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose a telephone company is a Bell, and not any sort of percussion device. It's also the short form for any number of terms, like diving bells, bell curves, etc --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Category:Bells (percussion) could work for this category. It would distinguish it from other sorts of instruments that are not percussion devices --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:49, 2 April 2022 (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:Lists of pilots
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: Aviators are pilots, so why is the latter a subcategory of the former?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 03:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Not at all. All pilots are aviators yes, but not all aviators are pilots. Aviators includes navigators and flight engineers as well, and they outnumber those who are just pilots. That said, I see no real need to have both categories - and aviators is the broader category, so it should be retained while the pilots category should have its contents moved to aviators.
- NiD.29 (
talk) 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
All the dictionaries I've checked say aviators are pilots. Do you have any sources that say otherwise?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 06:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment,
Category:Aviators contains much more than pilots so maybe the discussion should start at that level?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
All pilots are aviators, but not all aviators are pilots. What is so hard to comprehend about the distinction? We have two words for a reason. One means they are in control (pilot), the other means they spend time in airplanes doing something related to the aircraft flying (aviator) but might also be in control, especially for earlier use of the word.
Pilots could be redirected into aviators as the latter is broader but isn't necessarily the obvious category. Cambridge Aerospace dictionary defines aviator as "Operator of an aerodyne, esp. pilot. As term archaic, difficult to define; nearest modern equivalent is aircrew member." Why? Because some notable aviators were not pilots. The term also has problems with it being gendered, and if it wasn't the broader of the two definitions it would have been better to use pilot, however pilot specifically excludes observers, navigators, radio operators, bomb aimers, gunners, flight engineers, load masters and others who don't hold pilots certificates but who are aviators, and there are more than enough of them who were notable for them to have their own category. Indeed, I am beginning to think that those aviators who were pilots should go in the pilot category, and those who were not should go in the aviator category, with BOTH categories remaining, and with the pilot category as a subcategory of aviator.
- NiD.29 (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge, in practice the two categories have the same scope. Whether it should become 'aviators' or 'pilots' should be more broadly discussed afterwards.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The persons who guide ships into port are also called 'pilots', though I doubt there are many notable nautical pilots.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as the distinction between pilots and aviators for list purposes is too fine a grading.--
Mvqr (
talk) 12:57, 4 April 2022 (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: This is not a defining characteristic, just a familiar relationship to a fairly common rank
Reywas92Talk 23:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete -- It may count when it comes to precedence, but for the most part this is a NN characteristic.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, not a princess, not defining. --
Mvqr (
talk) 12:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete just an invitation to clutter biographical articles even more. I challenge anyone to name one person who is notable for this fact.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:36, 4 April 2022 (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:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter
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. With the exception of the nominator, there is unanimous numerical consensus that this category is useful for maintenance purposes. No convincing
WP:PAG-based argument has been brought up to
WP:DISCARD the "Oppose" !votes or consider this a
local consensus. The page contents can be discussed on the cat's talk page, at
Template talk:Infobox television or at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Consensus can change and the category can be renominated for deletion in the future if, for instance, consensus is reached that this maintenance task should not performed.
(non-admin closure)JBchrchtalk 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No consensus.
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Per discussion at
Template talk:Infobox television#Bot needed, there may not be consensus for the category or that the condition it tracks is a problem. Category instructions state that under these conditions (clarify: the |name= parameter being the same as the article title) the parameter should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically while the
infobox documentation states that the parameter Need not be used under these circumstances, suggesting it is optional. Discussion has indicated that while technically unneeded, the parameter has been useful to some editors. Meanwhile, the existence of the category has been taken as implied consensus for editors to perform thousands of edits. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is much more consensus among TV editors that this parameter should be removed than there is against it. The discussion there hasn't closed yet you jump ahead there? Your summarize of the discussion there is also incorrect - the parameter has been useful to some editors is plainly false, which you would know if you even edited TV articles (It's a bit strange seeing someone who as far as I can remember has never edited in the TV project pages come about with this deletion, which while that's your right, it's also my right to point that it does not look good). Also, regardless of this category or not, removing the parameter would still be possible and allowed. Also, is there a reason you haven't followed proper procedural and actually notified the category creator (me) of this discussion? Or is this yet another thing you do out of process?
Gonnym (
talk) 22:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion on the nomination itself, but in reply to you haven't followed proper [procedure]... there is no mandate for notifying a page creator when their page has been nominated for deletion. I don't know why everyone (i.e. this is not a statement that only Gonnym has made) seems to think it is required.
Primefac (
talk) 07:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry that this doesn't sit right with you. I thought this forum might attract more discussion (editors can discuss, it's right there in the name) and be more likely to turn up relevant guidelines and policy. As for the personal comments (
Wikipedia:Ad hominem) I won't take that
bait. I'll just suggest that all editors are equal and that it is more productive to discuss edits rather than editors. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 11:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please link to discussion of the consensus or state a reasoning (consensus isn't just saying you have consensus, nor is it a vote). If there is consensus that it be removed, why is this not reflected in the infobox instructions? –
Reidgreg (
talk) 11:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)reply
You mean, other than Need not be used if the name is the same as the article title as the infobox handles this automatically?
Gonnym (
talk) 05:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't mean to patronize you, but you really don't seem to be grasping this. It says "Need not be used" – not "should not be used", "don't use it" or "remove it if present". Its use is optional, not discouraged, and certainly not prohibited. There are plenty of things which are technically unnecessary which are still of value to the encyclopedia and the Wikipedia community. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Gonnym's argument above. Couldn't have said it better myself. This maintenance category is fine. —
Paper LuigiT •
C 22:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what the opposers are agreeing to in the category creator's first paragraph. Is it There is much more consensus among TV editors? To me, "more consensus" sounds a lot like split/mixed/partial consensus, which is essentially 'no consensus'. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 03:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Good thing that you aren't closing discussions then. Unanimously ≠ consensus.
Gonnym (
talk) 05:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as nom or alter text: This may boil down to the word should on the category page (full context at top). It is used to recommend an editing practice in Wikipedia's voice, which makes it look an awful lot like a guideline or the summary of a guideline. Guidelines require discussion and a high level of consensus (
WP:PROPOSAL). Template messages that the categorized pages need "attention en masse" [or] to be edited at someone's earliest convenience reinforce the implication that there is broad consensus and encourages editors to quickly make edits without consideration of the merits (or drawbacks) of doing so. I'm not aware of any procedure for creating tracking categories (I failed to find such) but it seems there's been a serious misstep here. Is a category page the right place to recommend/initiate topic-wide editing practices? I haven't seen this on other tracking categories. It can link to a relevant guideline and summarize it, when such exist. In the absence of such, I feel that it should have a disclaimer like {{
essay}}, change "should be removed" to "it may be removed with local consensus", have the category creator's signature to indicate it is a personal recommendation, or just delete it.
Note to closer: I would greatly appreciate a clear explanation for the close. Thanks. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The category page's wording can be revised to include a more liberal should in this case. The sentence in question, "Usages should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically", can be changed to something like, "When this parameter matches PAGENAMEBASE, the |name= parameter is redundant, and it can safely be removed as long as it does not conflict with readability or accessibility for editing the article." This would give more discrepancy to editors on when to remove the parameter, but it would not greatly limit them if they chose to remove it. —
Paper LuigiT •
C 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'd agree that's a step in the right direction, though I feel this should be more of a disclaimer than a recommendation because we do not have a 'high level of consensus'. Let me be clear, I am not talking about "limiting" what editors can do. Any editor can make any edit they want, even contravening guidelines. The problem is that the category's recommendation has been taken as carte blanche for
mass edits with little thought (eg: I was only following orders). I want editors to be thoughtful and responsible, not limited. I also don't like seeing guideline-creation policy being circumvented, and I feel we'd be party to that if we aren't careful here. –
Reidgreg (
talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (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:Marvel Comics angels
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: To make it simple and to the point: Marvel is not in the game of using Angel characters. This category has only 4 articles. And even within those...
Warren Worthington III is a mutant with wings who uses "Angel" as a codename, not an Angel as we understand the idea (a servant of God sent to Earth).
Zarathos is a demon and I really do not understand what is he doing in that category to begin with.
Angela (character) was an Angel only while published by Image; she is an "angel" in Marvel as well but that's a thing of its own, related to
Asgard (comics) and divorced from the common idea of an angel (see
here for in-universe info about the "Angels of Heven"). It may still fit in the category, but reinforces my point. And that leaves just
Janus (Marvel Comics), the only character Marvel Comics created as an Angel, a character from the semi-obscure The Tomb of Dracula comic from the 1970s. In short, a category with 4 articles, and they may be just 2 if we do cleanup.
Cambalachero (
talk) 13:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, will be a smallcat if it is cleaned up.--
Mvqr (
talk) 12:53, 4 April 2022 (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:Characters created by James Gunn
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: James Gunn did not create any of these characters. At best we can say that he adapted these characters, but we don't have
Categories:Characters adapted by creator category system.
Gonnym (
talk) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: I checked some articles about film superheroes and they do not seem to have "created by" categories.
Cambalachero (
talk) 00:37, 3 April 2022 (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:Ethnic Armenian people by religion
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:merge as a redundant category layer with only one subcategory. A second subcategory would be unneeded because all ethnic Armenians are Christians unless specified otherwise.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (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:NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series
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 series hasn't gone by the Mello Yello name since the early parts of October 2020.
Shiningpikablu252 (
talk) 05:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, also could have been sent to speedy.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 04:05, 4 April 2022 (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:Bells (instrument)
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.
Comment --
Bell (disambiguation) has a lot of alternative uses, but most are derivative. In response to
Marcocapelle the two items mentioned are already in the category and properly so.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 12:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
That is odd, because the article
Bell is about a percussion instrument.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - Well hmm. I'm looking over
Bell (disambiguation) and I think most of the signal bells could also be considered musical instruments -
Church bells for one example. And are we differentiating between physical bells (metal, wooden, etc) and items which electronically or artificially create a bell-like sound? And thinking about some doorbells, are
chimes bells? (
Chimes redirects to
Tubular bells.) Maybe create
Category:Bells as a container cat, and subcat as appropriate? I dunno. Maybe not. Trying to think of a better general use disambiguator than "instrument". If we said Bells (percussion), would we now be adding
xylophones and such? - jc37 02:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose a telephone company is a Bell, and not any sort of percussion device. It's also the short form for any number of terms, like diving bells, bell curves, etc --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Category:Bells (percussion) could work for this category. It would distinguish it from other sorts of instruments that are not percussion devices --
65.92.246.142 (
talk) 04:49, 2 April 2022 (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:Lists of pilots
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: Aviators are pilots, so why is the latter a subcategory of the former?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 03:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Not at all. All pilots are aviators yes, but not all aviators are pilots. Aviators includes navigators and flight engineers as well, and they outnumber those who are just pilots. That said, I see no real need to have both categories - and aviators is the broader category, so it should be retained while the pilots category should have its contents moved to aviators.
- NiD.29 (
talk) 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
All the dictionaries I've checked say aviators are pilots. Do you have any sources that say otherwise?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 06:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment,
Category:Aviators contains much more than pilots so maybe the discussion should start at that level?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
All pilots are aviators, but not all aviators are pilots. What is so hard to comprehend about the distinction? We have two words for a reason. One means they are in control (pilot), the other means they spend time in airplanes doing something related to the aircraft flying (aviator) but might also be in control, especially for earlier use of the word.
Pilots could be redirected into aviators as the latter is broader but isn't necessarily the obvious category. Cambridge Aerospace dictionary defines aviator as "Operator of an aerodyne, esp. pilot. As term archaic, difficult to define; nearest modern equivalent is aircrew member." Why? Because some notable aviators were not pilots. The term also has problems with it being gendered, and if it wasn't the broader of the two definitions it would have been better to use pilot, however pilot specifically excludes observers, navigators, radio operators, bomb aimers, gunners, flight engineers, load masters and others who don't hold pilots certificates but who are aviators, and there are more than enough of them who were notable for them to have their own category. Indeed, I am beginning to think that those aviators who were pilots should go in the pilot category, and those who were not should go in the aviator category, with BOTH categories remaining, and with the pilot category as a subcategory of aviator.
- NiD.29 (
talk) 18:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge, in practice the two categories have the same scope. Whether it should become 'aviators' or 'pilots' should be more broadly discussed afterwards.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The persons who guide ships into port are also called 'pilots', though I doubt there are many notable nautical pilots.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Support as the distinction between pilots and aviators for list purposes is too fine a grading.--
Mvqr (
talk) 12:57, 4 April 2022 (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.