Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11

Category:Vegetarians

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 February 2013‎

  • Keep all - vegetarianism is not a "trivial trait". It is often rooted in deep-seated religious, spiritual or ethical beliefs. No reasonable case offered for deletion. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete—Although the New Zealand sub-category has not been nominated, it's the one I've analysed as I'm local. None of the six members of the sub-category are defined by their vegetarianism. Each is notable for other reasons. One of the articles doesn't mention vegetarianism and the other five only mention it in passing or briefly in the "personal life" section. One of them eats meat as well as veges. I assume that the other subcategories are similarly full of people who are not notable for their vegetarianism regardless of nominations by PETA for sexiness. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 03:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment when Vegatarianism is rooted in religion, we should be categorizing the people by their religion, not by one specific way they practice it. Anyway, there are lots of people who are vegetarians just as a fad, because of health issues, or for other reasons. It is a trivial trait. I have also seen some articles where the person is so categorized without any mention of it in the article, and very. Often when it is mentioned it is not clear it really is important enough to the person to be mentioned. I will add the remaining nationalities. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Added Category:Colombian vegetarians
  • Added Category:Czech vegetarians
  • Added Category:Indian vegetarians
  • Added Category:New Zealand vegetarians
  • Addition comment This is a trivial trait. We do not categorize people by diet decisions. There is no reason to have vegetarain categories and not have other diet decision categories. These just encorage the inclusion of trivial information in articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the Colombian category for example consists of César López who is broderline notable at best. However there is no mention in the article about his diet choices at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This has several issues. One, verifiability. Is it enough to include someone in this category who was at any point in their life a vegetarian? Or will it be limited to only those who are currently vegetarians? If the latter, then it would be impossible to maintain, since even if it is reported that "X is a vegetarian", the fact that they may have stopped being one is often not reported. Two, if we include anyone who at any point has been reported as a vegetarian, it's a non-defining characteristic. Three, person X is reported as a vegetarian. Person Y posts evidence that Person X was seen eating meat somewhere, somehow, someplace. Does the tag stay? Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete trivial. Actually, JPL's comments are persuasive: next we'll be having Category:Circumcised people because that seems to be trendy (though, unlike vegetarianism, not susceptible to willy-nilly changes - pun intended). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; while perhaps not "trivial" in all cases, I doubt that the vast majority of these people are notable for being a vegetarian. If there is some such person, surely something like Category:Vegetarian activists can suffice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Los Angeles Misioneros

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. It's all the same team. – Michael ( talk) 20:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This makes it possible for a player to be in 4 categories without changing teams. This is just a bad idea. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Minnesota Thunder (USL A-League) players

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Carolina Dynamo

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It's the same team. WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:Ammartivari

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per precedent. Categories for pages relating to a single user are always deleted as failing the requirements in Wikipedia:User categories. Pichpich ( talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This type of category exists for many projects, and there is no sign of either 1) a local consensus to remove it for WikiProject United States, or 2) a broader consensus to remove all such categories. The nominator or others may wish to start a wider discussion elsewhere on categorising redirects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is entirely redundant to Category:Redirect-Class United States articles as all redirects are automatically of NA importance. I do quite a lot of categorising redirects, and this is the only project I am aware of that has a category like this. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Before deleting, you'll need to edit {{ WikiProject United States}}, so that the {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} used in that banner has the parameter |SUPPRESS_NA_IMPORTANCE=yes set. Bear in mind that this will also affect the other nine subcategories of Category:NA-importance United States articles, such as Category:Template-Class United States articles of NA-importance, Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance, etc. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a WikiProject category. Has WikiProject United States been notified of this proposal? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, twice, both less than ten minutes after the CFD was filed. The first of these is how I came to be here... -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The notifications could have been quicker, but I'm not at all familiar with which CfD notification templates do what, what parameters they take and whether they generate their own section headers or not. As for the double notification, I figured that the WT page would notify those who do the assessing and the Template talk those who maintain the templates. Whatever flaws I may have as an editor, failing to WikiProjects of deletion discussions is definitely not one of them - indeed possibly the exact opposite ;). Thryduulf ( talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • There's no problem as far as I'm concerned. Less than ten minutes is more than quick enough if you don't use automated tools (it's not as if you had left it 24 hours); and putting a note on both the Wikipedia talk: and the Template talk: should be sufficient to catch those who watch one but not the other. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This is completely pointless. Unless the use of NA for things like Category and template are deprecated completely (which might have some merit) then there is no reason to do this. There are lots of other things that need to be done this is not one of them. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 04:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Exactly what purpose is served by having this? NA in the assessment process is more of a place holder then a classification that is actually used. Like many projects, I suspect that the WP:US template was copied and pasted from several sources. Given that no one has explained how it is useful, it would appear that no one in the project is using this. Pointless or not, if there is no reason for the category, it should be deleted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Its really no problem to delete it however then someone needs to do a bot request to remove the |importance=NA from thousands of articles and ensure that it stays removed. I would also say that if this is removed from this project, then it should be removed from others as well for the same arguments. This is not by far the only project that uses this so unless someone can prove that there is some valid reason it be removed from this project and not the others. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Removing |importance=NA will not have any effect; see Talk:(US) where I have just removed that parameter: it's still in both Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance and Category:NA-importance United States articles. You need to amend the {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} contained inside {{ WikiProject United States}}, as I stated earlier; and if this is done there will be no need to send a bot chasing around 42,162 talk pages - they'll simply drop out of the category when the job queue processes them. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    But then that still leaves the problem of having tens of thousands of articles with an uneeded and unused |importance=NA. This also causes the problem of making coding more difficult of changes are needed (like the articles for Kansas reverting to WPUS Kansas). This means that additional coding is needed to recognize with and without the importance parameter. Additionally, as I mentioned before, if this is an issue for WPUS, then it should be removed from all projects, not just this one. This isn't the only project that use the NA parameter. This to me is just another example of the systematic dismantling of the WPUS project. Frankly, I think there is merit to eliminating the NA importance altogether but if we do that we should do it across the board not pick this project because its not popular and is largely defenseless. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Also, the argument this is the only project that uses it is also false. Here are 3 and there are a lot more: Category:Redirect-Class Astronomy articles of NA-importance, Category:Redirect-Class Comics articles of NA-importance, Category:Redirect-Class Disney articles of NA-importance. If the only way to do this is to force hide every class with NA (Category, Template, Redirect, etc) then its a nonstarter and this should be closed until there is a site consensus on eliminating NA importance which I would support. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Having tens of thousands of articles with an unneeded and unused |importance=NA is no problem at all. Where this is present in a banner marked |class=redirect it's already unneeded, since redirects (also dab pages and anything outside article space, such as categories, templates, files etc.) are automatically NA-importance unless explicitly marked with another importance. Regarding Kansas: that has its own importance rating set by |Kansas-importance= (or its alias |KS-importance=) which would be entirely unaffected by anything proposed above. No additional code is needed to "recognize with and without the importance parameter". It's already built in to {{ WPBannerMeta}} and its subtemplates.
    I described how turning off Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance can be achieved by setting |SUPPRESS_NA_IMPORTANCE=yes in {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}}. That template is within {{ WikiProject United States}} so any amendments made there would not affect Astronomy, Comics, Disney or anything else: those have their own {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} contained inside their WikiProject banners.
    Finally, you seem to be misunderstanding the proposal. It is not to eliminate NA-importance from WikiProject United States; it is to remove the single category Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance. I have explained that to do this would necessarily also force the removal of the nine other subcategories of Category:NA-importance United States articles; but Category:NA-importance United States articles would itself remain, and would continue to contain 251,527 pages; and therefore NA-importance would not be eliminated from WPUS, nor from anything else. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Right, I understand but its still a zero sum gain. Keeping the categories or not keeping the categories is irrelevent. The end result is the same. What is relevant is that the elimination of these categories, is just as pointless as having the categories. I would also argue that because of the X-importance parameters for the subprojects, to not have it for the main project is confusing. For what its worth I agree with the point that having NA is pointless, always did, but its a standard that was established outside this project and used by a number of others. Keep it or remove it, it makes no difference to me. Its just a pointless deletion of a category for the sake of proving a point and is just the latest edit to erode the WPUS project. If we get rid of NA fine, but do it site wide not pick one project just because. Do away with them all. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:U.S. Pergocrema 1932 players

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Old club (company) folded, despite not a legal heir which bought the brand name, the new club located in same city (Crema) and refer to the same root, the original club found in the suburb of Pergoletto, Crema. (Pergolettese, a demonym of Pergoletto) Matthew_hk t c 13:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew_hk t c 13:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Support - possibly could've been nominated for a speedy rename. – Michael ( talk) 07:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hangzhou railway station stubs

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 category, redirect template.
Note that Qetuth's comments about other other templates are outside the scope of this nomination. They would require a separate discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. City-specific category undersized. Propose switching both category and template to province-level category. Should allow for more taggable articles and will provide parallelism with other Chinese rail station categories. Dawynn ( talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rainbow Codes

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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 25. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a case of categorisation by shared naming characteristic. The category groups a variety of United Kingdom defense programs that were named under the "Rainbow Code" scheme (color+random word), that range from nuclear bombs to space launch vehicles and radar sets. While it is true that categories and lists are often complimentary, this category is wholly redundant to List of Rainbow Codes and should be deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • keep Or else delete every category on WP. It's a triviality that all categories could be replaced by static lists, the question is whether that's a good idea or not.
This is a category with excellent defining characteristics. The group it identifies, "Cold War military projects of the UK", is a substantial and significant one (although note that not all "projects" were major enough to have rainbow codenames). Conditions for their inclusion are clear. There is also a benefit, as usual, to using annotational markup on an article to push an article into its category than to maintain a list that pulls them in. That said, the list also has value as an annotated overall description of them – particularly as many were renamed over time.
I fail to even understand why the nominator would wish to delete this category. It's not merely a justifiable category, it's a good example of why they're useful and appropriate. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason I nominated it was, as I said, that this appears to be categorisation by shared name/naming characteristic. I'm quite happy to listen to arguments otherwise, but hyperbolic "delete noting or everything" comments don't help build or maintain the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment If this is category is (to be) deleted we could create an admin category (like Category:Redirects from ATC codes) for the redirects, and create some new redirects - e.g. "Red Dean (missile)" to make it complete. DexDor ( talk) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete are categorization by shared name. It is not clear that anything but name ties these in a way that also excludes things not here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Rainbow codes are far more than just a "shared name". If they are just a shared name and no more, then presumably you will also be AfDing List of Rainbow Codes, as any issues of notability would apply equally to a category or a list. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Andy, that's absolutely not how things work, as you should very well know. "Notability" has nothing to do with this category's nomination. It's because we don't categorise by shared name. The topic is extremely notable - for an article. Having a category that groups radars, nuclear bombs, missiles, etc. that have their only shared characteristic as their naming pattern, though, is not what the category system is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have lots of lists of things by their name, so having a shared name is at times notable. However I do not think in this case anything beyond their name creates a clear unity. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • That's what I'm trying to say, yeah. Having a shared name can indeed be (sometimes even very) notable, but a grounds for categorisation, it is not. The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not convinced this is the same thing as the shared name categories usually deleted here. The list article does not make it clear - Was "Rainbow codes" an official term used by the military for the contents of {{ UKColdWarProjects}}? Should this be renamed to some sort of "Cold War projects of the UK"? At the very least, I notice some of the articles lack any other position in the category tree of Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom, so it should be an upmerge not delete. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
See the AfD section below, Bushranger is already seeking to delete Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom and all date-related military categories, because of WP:OC#PERF and the view that military conflicts should be treated the same as theatrical performances. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
You might wish to rephrase your statement to reflect the facts. At no point have I stated I wish to delete "all date-related military categories". Weapons by conflict is not defining, but weapons by era is, and as I've said elsewhere the Cold War categories are just fine as by era instead of by conflict. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Boer War weapons and Gulf War equipment

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 (with some upmerges). This is not a referendum on the legitimacy of categorizing weapons by war in general. It is, however, a referendum on categorizing weapons by limited-length war for which the weapons were not designed. In the case of World War II, many weapons were created especially for the war; the Bat (guided bomb) was developed in 1941 and used by 1944. But the Gulf War wasn't a hot war for long enough for a single government design contract to be approved, let alone for a weapon to be designed, built, deployed, and used by the end of the war. The delete votes, of which there are many, provide a strong performer-by-performance rationale for this course of action.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Category:Gulf War ships and List of Gulf War military equipment should be moved to Category:Gulf War.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERFORM. Previous discussions about similar categories include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Falklands_War. Note: This nom is a step towards the deletion of most/all of Category:Military equipment by conflict. DexDor ( talk) 06:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • oppose Nomination is inappropriate. I presume the nominator meant WP:OC#PERF as a simple typo, but even that is about actors in a play, not military hardware. If we look at the parent category of one of those nominated, Category:Military aircraft by war we see that there are a number of sibling categories that are of comparable definition, but more densely populated. The only difference would seem to be their member count and state of completion, nomination for which would fly in the face of WP:IMPERFECT. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify then delete -- These are in the nature of performacne by performer categories, even though the performers here are the weapons, not actors. This is one of a long line of such noms over the last week or so that have eben getting similar responses. The Australian Boer War category can go completely, as it is unlikely that they did not use British weapons. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:OC#PERF I#ve added Category:Military aircraft of World War II to this nomination.
Nominator's rationale: As for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Boer_War_weapons_and_Gulf_War_equipment
If any one of these should be deleted per WP:OC#PERF, then all should go. Anything else would just be WP:RECENTISM. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, and agree that they should all go. The WWI and WWII categories may be retainable - but they fall under the problem that everything from that era would be categorised in them. "By operator" and "By conflict" are things that should be lists; "By country of origin" and "By manufacturer" are valid categorisations. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all we should not categorise by conflict/war/campaign or operator. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As I have said before this is actually worse than the performance category. At least there we know the subject of the article was invovled in the listed production. Here though the subject of the article is not a specific weapon, but a mass produced thing, in which case very rarely was all the production involved in the war. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, per Bushranger's + JPL's excellent arguments. Nothing more to add. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Question why isn't Category:Second Boer War weapons included in this nomination? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes - also Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War, Category:Second Boer War military equipment of Australia and Category:Second Boer War weapons of Australia. As one of those categories contains an article a separate CFD may be needed. DexDor ( talk) 07:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_16#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Second_Boer_War DexDor ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per the above discussions. I just read this and the follow on nomination and I'm just not seeing a reason to keep these. I suppose that one could make a case that if some weapons were defined by their use in a single conflict, then maybe we could reconsider. As was pointed out, how many conflicts has the AK-47 been involved in? Or the M2 Browning? I suppose one could argue that we need a list, but how do you determine how many have to have been used to make it's use defining or includeable in a list? Note that this has been open for 6 weeks! Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Numeronyms/Backronyms/Orphan initialisms

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain only articles (and redirects to articles) about subjects (e.g. organisations) whose name is ian initialism/numeronym/backronym and we categorise by article's subjects, not by characteristics of their name (the only exception to this is the Backronym article and that's already in the parent cat). DexDor ( talk) 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • keep The nomination is a fallacy and begs the question: do we indeed not categorize by linguistic characteristics? Why not? We should categorize when there is value added by categorizing. If the grouping has value to readers, then it's a good candidate for categorization. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Would you like to tell us why you think the nom is a fallacy ? Categorizing by linguistic characteristics of the title causes several problems - e.g. (1) articles get renamed to a synonym without the category being changed, (2) articles get categorized by characteristics of the title instead of by characteristics of the subject and (3) if Category:Abbreviations (for example) contained every article whose title was an abbreviation (mainy thousands) it'd be difficult to find articles that are about abbreviations (e.g. Apocope and Xmas). DexDor ( talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is overcategoriztion by shared name. The fact that a name be any one of these things says nothing about the thing so named. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - these categories are based on coincidence. Thing A and Thing B happen to have had backronyms made of their names; that doesn't mean the two things are in any meaningful way related to each other. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per recent deletion of "Orphan initialism" 220.246.157.130 ( talk) 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, I think that is a bad place to look. Even if we had an article on the concept, it would not mean we should categorize the concept. The big problem is that there is nothing that makes orphaned initialisms alike. They are just names, and the articles are on the things. I really can not see the point in a category that groups KFC and NPR. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, clearly categorization by dictionary characteristics -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete OCAT, if someone wants to source and listify, feel free to be bold. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deprecation of disproportionate usage of "initialism" on Wikipedia discussions that are similar to this one are being used as justification for a proposed deprecation of the term "initialism" in all Wikipedia articles. While I agree that these are overcategorization and categorization based on coincidence and should be deleted, we should make it clear that deleting these categories doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether initialisms, numeronyms or backronyms exist. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft manufactured by Algeria (etc)

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 to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Algeria. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Aircraft types (like other vehicle types) are often manufactured under licence in many countries, but it's the country of design (also normally the original manufacturer) that's the defining characteristic. There's recently been a discussion about this at WikiProject Aircraft. The navbox on these pages refers to "Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer" and this change will make it easier to resist pressure from some editors to place articles about aircraft manufactured only under licence in a country in that country's category. This change will also align the category with (for example) the categories below Category:Weapons by country. This nom is for a single category (to avoid placing a CFD tag on the other categories at this stage), but the intention is that if this category is renamed that the other (approx 60) similar categories below Category:Aircraft by country will be nominated for similar renaming. After renaming the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft may purge the categories of any articles that are now ineligible. DexDor ( talk) 06:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The way this category system now works is 'Aircraft manufactured by Fooistan' is the parent cat, and that category gets filled with subcategories of 'Aircraft by Fooinc', where each Category:Aircraft by manufacturer subcategory is also under its appropriate country subcat in Category:Aircraft by country. Ideally there should be no articles at all in each by-country subcat of Category:Aircraft by country, only subcats by manufacturer, with each article on an aircraft type in one of those subcategories. Also, "Aircraft of Foo" opens the possibility of a user adding types that were operated by, or in, a specific country, instead of having been built there. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There are currently no "Aircraft of..." categories so can you clarify ? DexDor ( talk) 07:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Gah, my brain inverted the target and subject categories. Fixed. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- most countries import most of theri aircraft from a few countries in which manufacture is concentrated. We do not want Boeing 747 cluttered with categories for all the countries whose airlines have bought some. That is in the nature of a performance by performer category. I agree that countries where aircraft are merely assembled may also be undesirable, but that may depend on the scale of this. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose category has a place in an existing and established category tree relating to the manufacturer of the type, aircraft of is ambigous and could be used to indicate aircraft operated by and we dont normally categorise by user. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Algeria. The issue here is where the aircraft was manufactured, but to say it is done by a country seems to be incorrect, at least in some cases. Boeing planes may be made in the United States, but that does not mean they are made by the United States. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per JPL; that which happens in a country is not necessarily "by" said country. I have doubts about a set of categories "Aircraft of Foo" because the fact that a 727 is flown (in, over, by airlines registered in) Foo is trivial IMO. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Question for JPL & Carlossuarez46: How will you categorise the manufacturing location of the Airbus A380? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to "Aircraft manufactured in Foo" per JPL, with the remainder of the tree to be speedy renamed per this AfD result. "In" does resolve any ambiguity. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shintōhō

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 to Category:Shintoho films. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one article. Mysterious Island ( talk) 01:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
It only contains one entry because the nominator has just emptied it.
See also Category:Shintoho Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The category contained only one article when I proposed it for deletion. I did not remove any article from this category prior to the above proposal. Immediately after the above proposal, User:Andy Dingley added several articles to it: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I have changed the category of these articles to Category:Shintoho due to the move of the main article. Mysterious Island ( talk) 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
That should have been done as a merge, not as a manual moving of the articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I do not know what that means, can you please explain? Mysterious Island ( talk) 08:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
When a page gets moved to a different name, its category needs to be renamed/moved through the speedy renaming process, instead of having its contents manually moved one article at a time. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Thanks for explaining. Mysterious Island ( talk) 11:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The marks should be used, and the article should be fixed too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Thought that might be the case. I'm not sure which the bigger tempest in a teacup is: diacritics or hyphens... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Shintoho was recently moved from the macronned name at requested moves. Please refer to this discussion. Mysterious Island ( talk) 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
If our deliberate choice is to use the bare-ASCII form, because there is some good source-based reason to do so, then of course we should do that. The point is that category and article should be consistent, and that our usual practice (if we need macrons etc) is to keep the pages at the canonical form and to use redirects to handle the accessibility issues. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
MOdified move proposal per move of main article. Mangoe ( talk) 12:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11&oldid=1138397840"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

February 11

Category:Vegetarians

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 February 2013‎

  • Keep all - vegetarianism is not a "trivial trait". It is often rooted in deep-seated religious, spiritual or ethical beliefs. No reasonable case offered for deletion. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete—Although the New Zealand sub-category has not been nominated, it's the one I've analysed as I'm local. None of the six members of the sub-category are defined by their vegetarianism. Each is notable for other reasons. One of the articles doesn't mention vegetarianism and the other five only mention it in passing or briefly in the "personal life" section. One of them eats meat as well as veges. I assume that the other subcategories are similarly full of people who are not notable for their vegetarianism regardless of nominations by PETA for sexiness. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 03:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment when Vegatarianism is rooted in religion, we should be categorizing the people by their religion, not by one specific way they practice it. Anyway, there are lots of people who are vegetarians just as a fad, because of health issues, or for other reasons. It is a trivial trait. I have also seen some articles where the person is so categorized without any mention of it in the article, and very. Often when it is mentioned it is not clear it really is important enough to the person to be mentioned. I will add the remaining nationalities. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Added Category:Colombian vegetarians
  • Added Category:Czech vegetarians
  • Added Category:Indian vegetarians
  • Added Category:New Zealand vegetarians
  • Addition comment This is a trivial trait. We do not categorize people by diet decisions. There is no reason to have vegetarain categories and not have other diet decision categories. These just encorage the inclusion of trivial information in articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the Colombian category for example consists of César López who is broderline notable at best. However there is no mention in the article about his diet choices at all. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This has several issues. One, verifiability. Is it enough to include someone in this category who was at any point in their life a vegetarian? Or will it be limited to only those who are currently vegetarians? If the latter, then it would be impossible to maintain, since even if it is reported that "X is a vegetarian", the fact that they may have stopped being one is often not reported. Two, if we include anyone who at any point has been reported as a vegetarian, it's a non-defining characteristic. Three, person X is reported as a vegetarian. Person Y posts evidence that Person X was seen eating meat somewhere, somehow, someplace. Does the tag stay? Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete trivial. Actually, JPL's comments are persuasive: next we'll be having Category:Circumcised people because that seems to be trendy (though, unlike vegetarianism, not susceptible to willy-nilly changes - pun intended). Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; while perhaps not "trivial" in all cases, I doubt that the vast majority of these people are notable for being a vegetarian. If there is some such person, surely something like Category:Vegetarian activists can suffice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Los Angeles Misioneros

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. It's all the same team. – Michael ( talk) 20:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge This makes it possible for a player to be in 4 categories without changing teams. This is just a bad idea. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Minnesota Thunder (USL A-League) players

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Carolina Dynamo

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It's the same team. WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:Ammartivari

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per precedent. Categories for pages relating to a single user are always deleted as failing the requirements in Wikipedia:User categories. Pichpich ( talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This type of category exists for many projects, and there is no sign of either 1) a local consensus to remove it for WikiProject United States, or 2) a broader consensus to remove all such categories. The nominator or others may wish to start a wider discussion elsewhere on categorising redirects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is entirely redundant to Category:Redirect-Class United States articles as all redirects are automatically of NA importance. I do quite a lot of categorising redirects, and this is the only project I am aware of that has a category like this. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Before deleting, you'll need to edit {{ WikiProject United States}}, so that the {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} used in that banner has the parameter |SUPPRESS_NA_IMPORTANCE=yes set. Bear in mind that this will also affect the other nine subcategories of Category:NA-importance United States articles, such as Category:Template-Class United States articles of NA-importance, Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance, etc. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a WikiProject category. Has WikiProject United States been notified of this proposal? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, twice, both less than ten minutes after the CFD was filed. The first of these is how I came to be here... -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The notifications could have been quicker, but I'm not at all familiar with which CfD notification templates do what, what parameters they take and whether they generate their own section headers or not. As for the double notification, I figured that the WT page would notify those who do the assessing and the Template talk those who maintain the templates. Whatever flaws I may have as an editor, failing to WikiProjects of deletion discussions is definitely not one of them - indeed possibly the exact opposite ;). Thryduulf ( talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • There's no problem as far as I'm concerned. Less than ten minutes is more than quick enough if you don't use automated tools (it's not as if you had left it 24 hours); and putting a note on both the Wikipedia talk: and the Template talk: should be sufficient to catch those who watch one but not the other. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose This is completely pointless. Unless the use of NA for things like Category and template are deprecated completely (which might have some merit) then there is no reason to do this. There are lots of other things that need to be done this is not one of them. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 04:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Exactly what purpose is served by having this? NA in the assessment process is more of a place holder then a classification that is actually used. Like many projects, I suspect that the WP:US template was copied and pasted from several sources. Given that no one has explained how it is useful, it would appear that no one in the project is using this. Pointless or not, if there is no reason for the category, it should be deleted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Its really no problem to delete it however then someone needs to do a bot request to remove the |importance=NA from thousands of articles and ensure that it stays removed. I would also say that if this is removed from this project, then it should be removed from others as well for the same arguments. This is not by far the only project that uses this so unless someone can prove that there is some valid reason it be removed from this project and not the others. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Removing |importance=NA will not have any effect; see Talk:(US) where I have just removed that parameter: it's still in both Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance and Category:NA-importance United States articles. You need to amend the {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} contained inside {{ WikiProject United States}}, as I stated earlier; and if this is done there will be no need to send a bot chasing around 42,162 talk pages - they'll simply drop out of the category when the job queue processes them. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    But then that still leaves the problem of having tens of thousands of articles with an uneeded and unused |importance=NA. This also causes the problem of making coding more difficult of changes are needed (like the articles for Kansas reverting to WPUS Kansas). This means that additional coding is needed to recognize with and without the importance parameter. Additionally, as I mentioned before, if this is an issue for WPUS, then it should be removed from all projects, not just this one. This isn't the only project that use the NA parameter. This to me is just another example of the systematic dismantling of the WPUS project. Frankly, I think there is merit to eliminating the NA importance altogether but if we do that we should do it across the board not pick this project because its not popular and is largely defenseless. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Also, the argument this is the only project that uses it is also false. Here are 3 and there are a lot more: Category:Redirect-Class Astronomy articles of NA-importance, Category:Redirect-Class Comics articles of NA-importance, Category:Redirect-Class Disney articles of NA-importance. If the only way to do this is to force hide every class with NA (Category, Template, Redirect, etc) then its a nonstarter and this should be closed until there is a site consensus on eliminating NA importance which I would support. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Having tens of thousands of articles with an unneeded and unused |importance=NA is no problem at all. Where this is present in a banner marked |class=redirect it's already unneeded, since redirects (also dab pages and anything outside article space, such as categories, templates, files etc.) are automatically NA-importance unless explicitly marked with another importance. Regarding Kansas: that has its own importance rating set by |Kansas-importance= (or its alias |KS-importance=) which would be entirely unaffected by anything proposed above. No additional code is needed to "recognize with and without the importance parameter". It's already built in to {{ WPBannerMeta}} and its subtemplates.
    I described how turning off Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance can be achieved by setting |SUPPRESS_NA_IMPORTANCE=yes in {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}}. That template is within {{ WikiProject United States}} so any amendments made there would not affect Astronomy, Comics, Disney or anything else: those have their own {{ WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} contained inside their WikiProject banners.
    Finally, you seem to be misunderstanding the proposal. It is not to eliminate NA-importance from WikiProject United States; it is to remove the single category Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance. I have explained that to do this would necessarily also force the removal of the nine other subcategories of Category:NA-importance United States articles; but Category:NA-importance United States articles would itself remain, and would continue to contain 251,527 pages; and therefore NA-importance would not be eliminated from WPUS, nor from anything else. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 13:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    Right, I understand but its still a zero sum gain. Keeping the categories or not keeping the categories is irrelevent. The end result is the same. What is relevant is that the elimination of these categories, is just as pointless as having the categories. I would also argue that because of the X-importance parameters for the subprojects, to not have it for the main project is confusing. For what its worth I agree with the point that having NA is pointless, always did, but its a standard that was established outside this project and used by a number of others. Keep it or remove it, it makes no difference to me. Its just a pointless deletion of a category for the sake of proving a point and is just the latest edit to erode the WPUS project. If we get rid of NA fine, but do it site wide not pick one project just because. Do away with them all. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:U.S. Pergocrema 1932 players

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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Old club (company) folded, despite not a legal heir which bought the brand name, the new club located in same city (Crema) and refer to the same root, the original club found in the suburb of Pergoletto, Crema. (Pergolettese, a demonym of Pergoletto) Matthew_hk t c 13:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew_hk t c 13:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Support - possibly could've been nominated for a speedy rename. – Michael ( talk) 07:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hangzhou railway station stubs

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 category, redirect template.
Note that Qetuth's comments about other other templates are outside the scope of this nomination. They would require a separate discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. City-specific category undersized. Propose switching both category and template to province-level category. Should allow for more taggable articles and will provide parallelism with other Chinese rail station categories. Dawynn ( talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rainbow Codes

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: relisted at CFD 2013 February 25. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a case of categorisation by shared naming characteristic. The category groups a variety of United Kingdom defense programs that were named under the "Rainbow Code" scheme (color+random word), that range from nuclear bombs to space launch vehicles and radar sets. While it is true that categories and lists are often complimentary, this category is wholly redundant to List of Rainbow Codes and should be deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • keep Or else delete every category on WP. It's a triviality that all categories could be replaced by static lists, the question is whether that's a good idea or not.
This is a category with excellent defining characteristics. The group it identifies, "Cold War military projects of the UK", is a substantial and significant one (although note that not all "projects" were major enough to have rainbow codenames). Conditions for their inclusion are clear. There is also a benefit, as usual, to using annotational markup on an article to push an article into its category than to maintain a list that pulls them in. That said, the list also has value as an annotated overall description of them – particularly as many were renamed over time.
I fail to even understand why the nominator would wish to delete this category. It's not merely a justifiable category, it's a good example of why they're useful and appropriate. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason I nominated it was, as I said, that this appears to be categorisation by shared name/naming characteristic. I'm quite happy to listen to arguments otherwise, but hyperbolic "delete noting or everything" comments don't help build or maintain the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment If this is category is (to be) deleted we could create an admin category (like Category:Redirects from ATC codes) for the redirects, and create some new redirects - e.g. "Red Dean (missile)" to make it complete. DexDor ( talk) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete are categorization by shared name. It is not clear that anything but name ties these in a way that also excludes things not here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Rainbow codes are far more than just a "shared name". If they are just a shared name and no more, then presumably you will also be AfDing List of Rainbow Codes, as any issues of notability would apply equally to a category or a list. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Andy, that's absolutely not how things work, as you should very well know. "Notability" has nothing to do with this category's nomination. It's because we don't categorise by shared name. The topic is extremely notable - for an article. Having a category that groups radars, nuclear bombs, missiles, etc. that have their only shared characteristic as their naming pattern, though, is not what the category system is for. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment we have lots of lists of things by their name, so having a shared name is at times notable. However I do not think in this case anything beyond their name creates a clear unity. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • That's what I'm trying to say, yeah. Having a shared name can indeed be (sometimes even very) notable, but a grounds for categorisation, it is not. The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not convinced this is the same thing as the shared name categories usually deleted here. The list article does not make it clear - Was "Rainbow codes" an official term used by the military for the contents of {{ UKColdWarProjects}}? Should this be renamed to some sort of "Cold War projects of the UK"? At the very least, I notice some of the articles lack any other position in the category tree of Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom, so it should be an upmerge not delete. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
See the AfD section below, Bushranger is already seeking to delete Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom and all date-related military categories, because of WP:OC#PERF and the view that military conflicts should be treated the same as theatrical performances. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
You might wish to rephrase your statement to reflect the facts. At no point have I stated I wish to delete "all date-related military categories". Weapons by conflict is not defining, but weapons by era is, and as I've said elsewhere the Cold War categories are just fine as by era instead of by conflict. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Boer War weapons and Gulf War equipment

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 (with some upmerges). This is not a referendum on the legitimacy of categorizing weapons by war in general. It is, however, a referendum on categorizing weapons by limited-length war for which the weapons were not designed. In the case of World War II, many weapons were created especially for the war; the Bat (guided bomb) was developed in 1941 and used by 1944. But the Gulf War wasn't a hot war for long enough for a single government design contract to be approved, let alone for a weapon to be designed, built, deployed, and used by the end of the war. The delete votes, of which there are many, provide a strong performer-by-performance rationale for this course of action.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 17:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Category:Gulf War ships and List of Gulf War military equipment should be moved to Category:Gulf War.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERFORM. Previous discussions about similar categories include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Falklands_War. Note: This nom is a step towards the deletion of most/all of Category:Military equipment by conflict. DexDor ( talk) 06:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • oppose Nomination is inappropriate. I presume the nominator meant WP:OC#PERF as a simple typo, but even that is about actors in a play, not military hardware. If we look at the parent category of one of those nominated, Category:Military aircraft by war we see that there are a number of sibling categories that are of comparable definition, but more densely populated. The only difference would seem to be their member count and state of completion, nomination for which would fly in the face of WP:IMPERFECT. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify then delete -- These are in the nature of performacne by performer categories, even though the performers here are the weapons, not actors. This is one of a long line of such noms over the last week or so that have eben getting similar responses. The Australian Boer War category can go completely, as it is unlikely that they did not use British weapons. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:OC#PERF I#ve added Category:Military aircraft of World War II to this nomination.
Nominator's rationale: As for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Boer_War_weapons_and_Gulf_War_equipment
If any one of these should be deleted per WP:OC#PERF, then all should go. Anything else would just be WP:RECENTISM. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, and agree that they should all go. The WWI and WWII categories may be retainable - but they fall under the problem that everything from that era would be categorised in them. "By operator" and "By conflict" are things that should be lists; "By country of origin" and "By manufacturer" are valid categorisations. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all we should not categorise by conflict/war/campaign or operator. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As I have said before this is actually worse than the performance category. At least there we know the subject of the article was invovled in the listed production. Here though the subject of the article is not a specific weapon, but a mass produced thing, in which case very rarely was all the production involved in the war. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, per Bushranger's + JPL's excellent arguments. Nothing more to add. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Listify -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Question why isn't Category:Second Boer War weapons included in this nomination? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes - also Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War, Category:Second Boer War military equipment of Australia and Category:Second Boer War weapons of Australia. As one of those categories contains an article a separate CFD may be needed. DexDor ( talk) 07:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_16#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Second_Boer_War DexDor ( talk) 06:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per the above discussions. I just read this and the follow on nomination and I'm just not seeing a reason to keep these. I suppose that one could make a case that if some weapons were defined by their use in a single conflict, then maybe we could reconsider. As was pointed out, how many conflicts has the AK-47 been involved in? Or the M2 Browning? I suppose one could argue that we need a list, but how do you determine how many have to have been used to make it's use defining or includeable in a list? Note that this has been open for 6 weeks! Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Numeronyms/Backronyms/Orphan initialisms

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories contain only articles (and redirects to articles) about subjects (e.g. organisations) whose name is ian initialism/numeronym/backronym and we categorise by article's subjects, not by characteristics of their name (the only exception to this is the Backronym article and that's already in the parent cat). DexDor ( talk) 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • keep The nomination is a fallacy and begs the question: do we indeed not categorize by linguistic characteristics? Why not? We should categorize when there is value added by categorizing. If the grouping has value to readers, then it's a good candidate for categorization. Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Would you like to tell us why you think the nom is a fallacy ? Categorizing by linguistic characteristics of the title causes several problems - e.g. (1) articles get renamed to a synonym without the category being changed, (2) articles get categorized by characteristics of the title instead of by characteristics of the subject and (3) if Category:Abbreviations (for example) contained every article whose title was an abbreviation (mainy thousands) it'd be difficult to find articles that are about abbreviations (e.g. Apocope and Xmas). DexDor ( talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is overcategoriztion by shared name. The fact that a name be any one of these things says nothing about the thing so named. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all - these categories are based on coincidence. Thing A and Thing B happen to have had backronyms made of their names; that doesn't mean the two things are in any meaningful way related to each other. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per recent deletion of "Orphan initialism" 220.246.157.130 ( talk) 01:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, I think that is a bad place to look. Even if we had an article on the concept, it would not mean we should categorize the concept. The big problem is that there is nothing that makes orphaned initialisms alike. They are just names, and the articles are on the things. I really can not see the point in a category that groups KFC and NPR. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, clearly categorization by dictionary characteristics -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete OCAT, if someone wants to source and listify, feel free to be bold. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Deprecation of disproportionate usage of "initialism" on Wikipedia discussions that are similar to this one are being used as justification for a proposed deprecation of the term "initialism" in all Wikipedia articles. While I agree that these are overcategorization and categorization based on coincidence and should be deleted, we should make it clear that deleting these categories doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether initialisms, numeronyms or backronyms exist. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aircraft manufactured by Algeria (etc)

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 to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Algeria. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Aircraft types (like other vehicle types) are often manufactured under licence in many countries, but it's the country of design (also normally the original manufacturer) that's the defining characteristic. There's recently been a discussion about this at WikiProject Aircraft. The navbox on these pages refers to "Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer" and this change will make it easier to resist pressure from some editors to place articles about aircraft manufactured only under licence in a country in that country's category. This change will also align the category with (for example) the categories below Category:Weapons by country. This nom is for a single category (to avoid placing a CFD tag on the other categories at this stage), but the intention is that if this category is renamed that the other (approx 60) similar categories below Category:Aircraft by country will be nominated for similar renaming. After renaming the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft may purge the categories of any articles that are now ineligible. DexDor ( talk) 06:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The way this category system now works is 'Aircraft manufactured by Fooistan' is the parent cat, and that category gets filled with subcategories of 'Aircraft by Fooinc', where each Category:Aircraft by manufacturer subcategory is also under its appropriate country subcat in Category:Aircraft by country. Ideally there should be no articles at all in each by-country subcat of Category:Aircraft by country, only subcats by manufacturer, with each article on an aircraft type in one of those subcategories. Also, "Aircraft of Foo" opens the possibility of a user adding types that were operated by, or in, a specific country, instead of having been built there. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There are currently no "Aircraft of..." categories so can you clarify ? DexDor ( talk) 07:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Gah, my brain inverted the target and subject categories. Fixed. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- most countries import most of theri aircraft from a few countries in which manufacture is concentrated. We do not want Boeing 747 cluttered with categories for all the countries whose airlines have bought some. That is in the nature of a performance by performer category. I agree that countries where aircraft are merely assembled may also be undesirable, but that may depend on the scale of this. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose category has a place in an existing and established category tree relating to the manufacturer of the type, aircraft of is ambigous and could be used to indicate aircraft operated by and we dont normally categorise by user. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Algeria. The issue here is where the aircraft was manufactured, but to say it is done by a country seems to be incorrect, at least in some cases. Boeing planes may be made in the United States, but that does not mean they are made by the United States. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per JPL; that which happens in a country is not necessarily "by" said country. I have doubts about a set of categories "Aircraft of Foo" because the fact that a 727 is flown (in, over, by airlines registered in) Foo is trivial IMO. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Question for JPL & Carlossuarez46: How will you categorise the manufacturing location of the Airbus A380? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to "Aircraft manufactured in Foo" per JPL, with the remainder of the tree to be speedy renamed per this AfD result. "In" does resolve any ambiguity. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Shintōhō

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 to Category:Shintoho films. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one article. Mysterious Island ( talk) 01:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
It only contains one entry because the nominator has just emptied it.
See also Category:Shintoho Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The category contained only one article when I proposed it for deletion. I did not remove any article from this category prior to the above proposal. Immediately after the above proposal, User:Andy Dingley added several articles to it: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I have changed the category of these articles to Category:Shintoho due to the move of the main article. Mysterious Island ( talk) 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
That should have been done as a merge, not as a manual moving of the articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I do not know what that means, can you please explain? Mysterious Island ( talk) 08:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
When a page gets moved to a different name, its category needs to be renamed/moved through the speedy renaming process, instead of having its contents manually moved one article at a time. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Thanks for explaining. Mysterious Island ( talk) 11:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The marks should be used, and the article should be fixed too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Thought that might be the case. I'm not sure which the bigger tempest in a teacup is: diacritics or hyphens... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Shintoho was recently moved from the macronned name at requested moves. Please refer to this discussion. Mysterious Island ( talk) 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
If our deliberate choice is to use the bare-ASCII form, because there is some good source-based reason to do so, then of course we should do that. The point is that category and article should be consistent, and that our usual practice (if we need macrons etc) is to keep the pages at the canonical form and to use redirects to handle the accessibility issues. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
MOdified move proposal per move of main article. Mangoe ( talk) 12:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11&oldid=1138397840"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE