The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't know much about this band, but given that the category only contains the main article and the article about the band's only album, the category seems quite unnecessary.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I'm not sure if the musical-groups category tree is one of those that allows for one-article cats or not. But I do know the first thing I think of when I see the term "lifer" is
not a band. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – the album (which might well not be notable) should be in an albums category (and now is).
Occuli (
talk) 08:25, 30 September 2011 (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:Carnival cities and towns
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of cities by event which is held there. The fact that these cities celebrate
Carnival is generally not defining for them. And please, no suggestions for
Category:Carnival populated places!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as nom, it is nondefining
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Tim! (
talk) 07:02, 2 October 2011 (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:British L class submarines of the Royal Navy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category's redundant name seems to have arisen from an assumption that the Japanese L class submarines were submarines of the same type - as that submarine class' category was a subcat of the merge target until I corrected that today. With that, the need to redundantly distinguish with the "...of the Royal Navy" tag has vanished. (This should probably be X of Y, i.e. "L class submarines of the Royal Navy", but the RN submarine cat tree currently uses the "British Foo class submarines" naming format predominatly, so that'll be for another time.)
The BushrangerOne ping only 22:16, 29 September 2011 (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:Works about art
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm in the midst of cleaning up another muddle created by
User:Stefanomione, this time about the distinction between "the arts" and "art." As the lead to the main article
The arts clearly states: The arts are a vast subdivision of culture, composed of many creative endeavors and disciplines. It is a broader term than "art", which as a description of a field usually means only the visual arts. Ignoring this, Stefanomione had created
Category:Works about the arts last month, as a redirect to
Category:Works about art. I've changed that and have started to populate Category:Works about the arts, which I think can be useful as a parent to
Category:Works about creative works (or maybe a merge: different discussion). Anyway, I recommend we rename this to Visual arts per main article
Visual arts. Question, does anyone feel strongly that we need a the as in Works about the visual arts? Changed per Johnbod, below.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
If successful, I think we'll also need to move the contents of
Category:Artists to a new subcat
Category:Visual artists, per the lead of
Artist which states: An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art. The common usage in both everyday speech and academic discourse is a practitioner in the visual arts only. The term is often used in the entertainment business, especially in a business context, for musicians and other performers (less often for actors). We need to be as precise as possible in category names, and the fact that
Category:Artists is exclusively populated with visual artists only indicates the problem. Writers, musicians and such are no less "artists," per main article, from what I can see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks John, that's what I had meant. I knew something looked off about my target name. I've modified the rename target per Johnbod.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
And per Johnbod's point, it seems to me the parent article could be renamed to the equally valid and commonly used "Visual art," per
WP:SINGULAR and
WP:PLURAL, but that's a different discussion. And of course the fact that the WikiProject is named
Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts makes me think they've considered it and decided against it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (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:Wal-Mart
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Military equipment of the Philippines
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:withdrawn by nominator. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's a large number of categories like this, but this is just the first one I've finally gotten around to tagging. Depending on consensus, there may well be more in the future. Basically, these categories group (in this case) aircraft, in a grouping that is non-defining and would be much better suited as an article. For ships, which have individual pages, "Naval ships of Foo" categories make sense. "Military equipment of Foo", "Weapons of Foo", "Military aircraft of Foo", etc., in cases where the aircraft/whatnot in question are -used- by Foo, instead of -developed- or -built- by Foo, however are
overcategorization, very nearly at its worst (see the Thirty Cat Pileup at the bottom of
AIM-120 AMRAAM for an example of how bad it can get - ugh!).
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Support – agree with the nominator. The inclusion statement "Military equipment of the Philippines includes all military equipment designed, produced, or operated by the Philippines" is too broad and should be changed to "Military equipment of the Philippines includes all military equipment designed or produced by the Philippines". However I'm not sure how this is best accomplished at cfd, as 'delete' doesn't work and a neat rename doesn't seem obvious (some of the ships are individual ships owned by the Philippines rather than designed or produced there).
Occuli (
talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The ship category, I'm pretty sure, falls under other supercats besides this one; the "equipment of..." categories infest the cat tree rather broadly (and randomly, at times, with regards to what's included where); probably the best way to deal with them and get them converted to "designed/produced" instead of "used" is to
nuke them as they're found and start afresh. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
So, esentially, it should simply be a case of recategorising the articles per "designed/built" instead of "operated", then? If that's consensus I'll withdraw the nom. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Per the above comments I've decided to withdraw this nomination and work instead on recategorising the articles in this category tree so that categories of this sort have the weapons designed and built in the countries in question, as opposed to
blowing it up and starting over. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
comment From the purpose statements in the categories, this entire category tree involving many countries is for weapons that are 'designed, produced, or used' by the country. Changing the categories' purpose by removing articles is not the answer--there is no consensus to make such a wholesale change from the few people commenting above on the categories of one country. If two category trees, one 'designed and produced' and the other 'used, are needed then so be it, but I am not advancing any particlar solution.
Hmains (
talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll start a discussion at MILHIST about the subject. Since "used by..." is rarely if ever defining for a weapon system (and again leads to disgusting messes like the cat section of
AIM-120 AMRAAM - and that's not even all the countries that use it! -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't know much about this band, but given that the category only contains the main article and the article about the band's only album, the category seems quite unnecessary.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I'm not sure if the musical-groups category tree is one of those that allows for one-article cats or not. But I do know the first thing I think of when I see the term "lifer" is
not a band. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete – the album (which might well not be notable) should be in an albums category (and now is).
Occuli (
talk) 08:25, 30 September 2011 (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:Carnival cities and towns
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of cities by event which is held there. The fact that these cities celebrate
Carnival is generally not defining for them. And please, no suggestions for
Category:Carnival populated places!
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as nom, it is nondefining
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Tim! (
talk) 07:02, 2 October 2011 (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:British L class submarines of the Royal Navy
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category's redundant name seems to have arisen from an assumption that the Japanese L class submarines were submarines of the same type - as that submarine class' category was a subcat of the merge target until I corrected that today. With that, the need to redundantly distinguish with the "...of the Royal Navy" tag has vanished. (This should probably be X of Y, i.e. "L class submarines of the Royal Navy", but the RN submarine cat tree currently uses the "British Foo class submarines" naming format predominatly, so that'll be for another time.)
The BushrangerOne ping only 22:16, 29 September 2011 (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:Works about art
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm in the midst of cleaning up another muddle created by
User:Stefanomione, this time about the distinction between "the arts" and "art." As the lead to the main article
The arts clearly states: The arts are a vast subdivision of culture, composed of many creative endeavors and disciplines. It is a broader term than "art", which as a description of a field usually means only the visual arts. Ignoring this, Stefanomione had created
Category:Works about the arts last month, as a redirect to
Category:Works about art. I've changed that and have started to populate Category:Works about the arts, which I think can be useful as a parent to
Category:Works about creative works (or maybe a merge: different discussion). Anyway, I recommend we rename this to Visual arts per main article
Visual arts. Question, does anyone feel strongly that we need a the as in Works about the visual arts? Changed per Johnbod, below.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
If successful, I think we'll also need to move the contents of
Category:Artists to a new subcat
Category:Visual artists, per the lead of
Artist which states: An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art. The common usage in both everyday speech and academic discourse is a practitioner in the visual arts only. The term is often used in the entertainment business, especially in a business context, for musicians and other performers (less often for actors). We need to be as precise as possible in category names, and the fact that
Category:Artists is exclusively populated with visual artists only indicates the problem. Writers, musicians and such are no less "artists," per main article, from what I can see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks John, that's what I had meant. I knew something looked off about my target name. I've modified the rename target per Johnbod.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
And per Johnbod's point, it seems to me the parent article could be renamed to the equally valid and commonly used "Visual art," per
WP:SINGULAR and
WP:PLURAL, but that's a different discussion. And of course the fact that the WikiProject is named
Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts makes me think they've considered it and decided against it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (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:Wal-Mart
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Military equipment of the Philippines
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:withdrawn by nominator. —
ξxplicit 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's a large number of categories like this, but this is just the first one I've finally gotten around to tagging. Depending on consensus, there may well be more in the future. Basically, these categories group (in this case) aircraft, in a grouping that is non-defining and would be much better suited as an article. For ships, which have individual pages, "Naval ships of Foo" categories make sense. "Military equipment of Foo", "Weapons of Foo", "Military aircraft of Foo", etc., in cases where the aircraft/whatnot in question are -used- by Foo, instead of -developed- or -built- by Foo, however are
overcategorization, very nearly at its worst (see the Thirty Cat Pileup at the bottom of
AIM-120 AMRAAM for an example of how bad it can get - ugh!).
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Support – agree with the nominator. The inclusion statement "Military equipment of the Philippines includes all military equipment designed, produced, or operated by the Philippines" is too broad and should be changed to "Military equipment of the Philippines includes all military equipment designed or produced by the Philippines". However I'm not sure how this is best accomplished at cfd, as 'delete' doesn't work and a neat rename doesn't seem obvious (some of the ships are individual ships owned by the Philippines rather than designed or produced there).
Occuli (
talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The ship category, I'm pretty sure, falls under other supercats besides this one; the "equipment of..." categories infest the cat tree rather broadly (and randomly, at times, with regards to what's included where); probably the best way to deal with them and get them converted to "designed/produced" instead of "used" is to
nuke them as they're found and start afresh. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)reply
So, esentially, it should simply be a case of recategorising the articles per "designed/built" instead of "operated", then? If that's consensus I'll withdraw the nom. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Per the above comments I've decided to withdraw this nomination and work instead on recategorising the articles in this category tree so that categories of this sort have the weapons designed and built in the countries in question, as opposed to
blowing it up and starting over. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
comment From the purpose statements in the categories, this entire category tree involving many countries is for weapons that are 'designed, produced, or used' by the country. Changing the categories' purpose by removing articles is not the answer--there is no consensus to make such a wholesale change from the few people commenting above on the categories of one country. If two category trees, one 'designed and produced' and the other 'used, are needed then so be it, but I am not advancing any particlar solution.
Hmains (
talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll start a discussion at MILHIST about the subject. Since "used by..." is rarely if ever defining for a weapon system (and again leads to disgusting messes like the cat section of
AIM-120 AMRAAM - and that's not even all the countries that use it! -
The BushrangerOne ping only 18:03, 2 October 2011 (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.