Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 23: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:40, 24 November 2011

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23

Category:World War II air force films

Propose renaming Category:World War II air force films to Category:World War II aviation films

Nominator's rationale: The main category is Aviation films, and there's a World War I aviation films category. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a question not sure of the convention but would Category:Aviation films of World War II be better? MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a look, it seems Category:Films by war is subcategorised using the "(War name) films (X)" format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:College football classics

Propose merging Category:College football classics to Category:College football competitions

Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to have a separate subcategory for college football competitions that have the word "classic" in them. They are essentially no different for the other items in Category:College football competitions. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)

Propose deleting Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) - Template:Lc1

Propose renaming Category:Triton class submarines to Category:Triton clas submarines (1958)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Looks like overcategorization. The article about the ship should be in Category:Operation Sandblast, not Operation Sandblast being in this category. This leaves only the main article and an article about Edward L. Beach, one of its commanders. The article for this ship is also in an overcategorized Category:Edward L. Beach, Jr., so there is cross-overcategorization of all these articles back and forth in both directions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - given that this exact category was renamed to Category:Triton class submarines literally three days ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that, but it only went through a speedy rename process. Its re-creation probably indicates that a user disagrees with the speedy process being used, so I thought it best to have a full discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, there are two different Triton classes of submarines -- USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the British T class submarine. I created a disambiguation page to handle this situation, and I stronlt suggest that this "new" Category:Triton class submarines be a candidate for swift deletion.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- USS Triton (SSRN-586) is in category United States Navy experimental nuclear submarines. There is little point for a "class" for a unique experimental submarine. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A single-ship class is still a class; if ships are to be categoriesed by class (a very well-established cat structure) then single-ship classes need to be categorised as well. That said, though, we don't need one for the ship in addition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A single-ship class is still a class, perhaps, but does it really added substantially to out overall understanding? Does Long Beach class cruiser add anything to the USS Long Beach (CG-9) single-ship article? Or Bainbridge class cruiser to the USS Bainbridge (CGN-25) article? Or Truxtun class cruiser to {USS|Truxtun|CGN-35}}? I think not, and neither does the creation of the single-ship class categories. The better and more logical approach is to create single-ship categories as needed. See below for my rationale to keeping Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586). Marcd30319 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, there are two different Triton classes of submarines -- USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the British T class submarine. I created a disambiguation page to handle this situation, and I think this disambiguation page handled this duplicative situation well. The creation of a separate category namned Triton class submarine solely around the USS Triton is, to say the least, confusing and redundant, and this new category should be the one to be swiftly deleted because of this fact, not Category USS Triton (SSRN-586). Marcd30319 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, no - USS Triton (SSRN-586) doesn't meet the naming format standards for disambiguation. But, there is an alternative - see my reply to your comment below.
Retain -- strongly recommends. I am the contributor who re-created the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586). I was the contributor responsible to helping USS Triton (SSRN-586) article achieve its A-class article status, and as such, I was are the first person on the English Wikipedia to have successfully guided a nuclear power fast attack submarine article to A-class status and consequently received a WikiProject Ships Barnstar for my contribution. I am not the original creator of the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), but I see its potential continued utility. The USS Triton is a unique submarine linked to a unique event (Operation Sandblast), a unique individual {Edward L. Beach, Jr.), and a unique engineering achievement with its dual-reactor propulsion plant (e.g., S3G reactor and S4G reactor). On the other hand, this new Category: Triton class submarine may very well be unnecessary and redundant since there are actually two Triton class submarines -- the USS Triton (SSRN-586) and the British T class submarine. As you can see, this new category does not address or accommodate this British class of submarine. I created disambiguation page (Triton class) which does address this situation and I believe this an appropriate and more consistent approach than a separate category. Therefore not only do I advocate the retention of Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586) as is, but I also advocate the speedy deletion of this new Category:Triton class submarine in light of the fact that the Triton class disambiguation page does the same job while accommodating the British T class submarine article. I also recommend that rather than go through this rapid deletion process, in the future, we leverage the talk pages of the affected article, category, etc., to discuss the situation more fully among the contributors who actually created the relevant article, category or disambiguation page. After all, this is supposed to be a collaborative environment. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, an alternative solution is already in progress - Category:Triton class submarines is currently at speedy-renaming to Category:Triton class submarines (1958), which is the fomrmat that is used when ship classes have to be disambiguated, and should solve the ambiguity problem nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...Which I now see you opposed. Oy vey. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) as not conforming to any established category tree and also not as per the conventional form of disambiguating ship classes. Rename Category:Triton class submarines to Category:Triton class submarines (1958) per the standard form of disambiguating ship-by-class categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy schooners

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy schooners to Category:Schooners of the United States Navy

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy ketchs to Category:Ketches of the United States Navy

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy brigs to Category:Brigs of the United States Navy

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy brigantines to Category:Brigantines of the United States Navy

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy nuclear ships to Category:Nuclear ships of the United States Navy

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy cutters to Category:Cutters of the United States Navy

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy dispatch boats to Category:Dispatch boats of the United States Navy

Nominator's rationale: Objected speedy on the basis that a standard naming pattern hasn't been established - which is untrue. The vast majority of sub-sub categories of Category:Ships by navy use "X of Y" naming; the only holdouts (outside of a few ships of the line) reside in the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and United States Navy categories, likely only because they were created first before the standard pattern was established. In addition, for schooners, brigs, brigantines, and nuclear-powered ships, the parent by-type categories (Category:Brigs, for instance) universally use "X of Y" naming. "X of Y" does have its faults, yes, but "Y X" has its own, and given that the overwhelming majority of ships-by-navy use "X of Y", there's no reason not to improve Wikipedia's appearance and professionalism through standardisation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I decided to count to be sure. Counting only subcategories of the by-navy subcategories of Category:Ships by navy, and only counting categories dedicated to ships types (vs. individual classes, names, tranferred ships), and including these here, the score is: X of Y:, 548, Y X: 50 (22 of which are USN subcats), indicating a very clear standard established using X of Y. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. We have a clear pattern for every other navy and country category of this kind, and the USN should not be treated any differently.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename – a standard naming pattern has been established, muddied somewhat by the Royal Navy. Occuli (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Ships of the Royal Navy has been standardized too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from the USN, the only "outliers" left are the RAN and the RCN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums recorded in Austin

Propose renaming Category:Albums recorded in Austin to Category:Albums recorded in Austin, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternately, delete as non-defining. Certainly, the recording location of some albums is notable: famous studios (e.g. Abbey Road) or famous live venues and concert halls (e.g. Carnegie Hall), but no one would ever say, "Album X? Oh, that was the one recorded in Austin, Texas, right? Yeah, I love Album X!" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, the recordig city does not define the record. Hekerui (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok. I was simply trying to expand Category:Albums recorded in the United States by city, which is also related to Category:Live albums recorded in the United States. Not sure why some cities are more important than others, but if contributors feel the category is irrelevant I won't be offended. Please keep in mind that the parent categories here could be greatly expanded, combined, etc. (live album by country/city, albums by recording location, etc.) Also, as categories are created for specific venues (concert halls OR studios), these city categories will become useful. Subcategories for Austin might include "Albums recorded at Stubb's BBQ", "Albums recorded at Austin City Limits", "Albums recorded at Emo's", etc. similar to subcategories seen for other cities. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to complicate things, but know that I also created categories for Houston, Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and Seattle with the intent to create more. I will hold off from doing so if contributors find these categories are not useful. Again, just keep in mind that similar categories exist for NYC, Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, etc. and I don't see why these are more important than other cities. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that anyone is saying those other locations are more important. It is common for a category to be nominated without consideration of the fact that similar categories exist. The purpose of the discussion here is to address that and try to make a consensus decision after considering all of the facts. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand, and I am by no means offended that the category was nominated. I genuinely thought I was just doing a favor by categorizing articles in a manner similar to what already existed. I just wanted to acknowledge which categories existed previously and which ones I created. I will hold off creating additional categories for live venues or cities until this discussion has ended. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to establish this bigger scheme. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider whether to rename to Category:Live albums recorded in Austin (and discard the studio ones). If we have a live album recorded at X, then X seems to me to be defining. There are 2 sessions albums in the category for which it seems to me that Austin is tangential (and indeed the articles don't mention Austin except in their title). Occuli (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo

Propose deleting Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo Template:Lc1 for the same reasons outlined for deleting Critics of the LaRouche Movement, wherein Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo was also referenced -- i.e. as a non-notable, somewhat subjective intersection. Should have been proposed sooner, I know; sorry for the delay. Quis separabit? 14:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I was doing a spate of those as it seemed to be "a thing" or relevant or whatever, but I'm not invested in it. If it has merit good, if not also okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Noble jurisdictions

Propose renaming Category:Noble jurisdictions to Category:Titles of nobility

Nominator's rationale: and all sub-categories using "noble jurisdictions" to similar titles. These categories are being used for titles of nobility that do not bestow a jurisdiction on the holder. If the categories are not renamed then all the titles that do not bestow a jurisdiction would have to be removed from the category, leaving just the medieval jurisdictions where the noble with that title held jurisdiction over the territory named. DrKiernan (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American nobility

Propose merging Category:American nobility to Category:Nobility of the Americas

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category and the suggested target category are being used for the same purpose: to house nobility from the Americas. Categories starting "American ..." typically refer to people from the United States. As there is no nobility of the United States, and the grammar and meaning of the target category is clearer, the American nobility category should be emptied into the Nobility of the Americas category and deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. "American" pretty much always means "United Statesian" when used as an adjective for categories, and these categories are clearly duplicates. The target category has a clearer name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Category:American nobility might need a better name (and parent Category:Nobility by nation is badly misnamed), but these are two entirely seperate category trees being discussed here - one in the Category:Nobility by nation tree, and the other the Category:Noble jurisdictions tree as mentioned in the nom above. Merging them will create a nasty mess. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also this CfD. If that is renamed, this could be moved to the vacated Category:Nobility of the Americas title starting a move to "X of Y" for that tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps this discussion should be delayed until the other one is completed. Then it would be a lot clearer where to go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Long-defunct sports league that was broadcast on these stations for three seasons in the 1980s. Neither the league's page or United States Football League on the radio mention "flagship" station status in any way, and I don't believe that this is defining for most, if any, of the stations categorised here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-defining. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atlantic Championship drivers

Propose renaming Category:Atlantic Championship drivers to Category:Formula Atlantic drivers

Propose renaming Category:Atlantic Championship seasons to Category:Formula Atlantic seasons

Nominator's rationale: While the main article for this racing series is at Atlantic Championship, that is merely the most recent name for the series, which has also been known as "Champ Car Atlantic" and "Toyota Atlantic" among others. "Formula Atlantic" is the name of the parent cat, however, and is the most widely recognised "generic" name of the series; I believe the subcats of Category:Formula Atlantic should follow its lead, at least until and unless the currently-defunct series is successfully revived The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support The only thing I'm worried about is the category names being misconstrued to refer to participants or seasons of amateur (SCCA) Formula Atlantic competition. -Drdisque (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's (IIRC) "Formula Atlantics" (admittedly a small difference) and, more importantly, I believe insufficently notable to ever merit categories here, so... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian sex workers

Category:Wikipedian sex workers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Hoax/fake content (also WP:OVERCAT junk) – contains no genuine material. Unnecessary "adult themed" innuendo which only aims to defile Wikipedia than be an asset. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has nothing to do with making an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives (Jewish)

Propose renaming Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives (Jewish) to Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives

Nominator's rationale: Have no idea what "Jewish" is doing here.. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename via a reversed-from-the-norm C2B. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Very straightforward. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives has 2 subcats ... the Mount of Olives is a mountain, not a cemetery, on which are at least 2 cemeteries, so I don't see the problem with the present set-up. Occuli (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials at the Church of Maria Magdalene would be a subcat of Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives under the proposed changes, which would make the categorization scheme simpler and remove the extraneous awkward "Jewish."--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/suggestion. For clarity, maybe it should be Category:Burials at the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives. Unless this particular cemetery has a proper name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands

Propose merging Category:Aviation crashes near or on Cape Cod and the Islands to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC that also has a rather nebulously defined area - "the Islands", for most people, won't translate as "Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket". Also this is a rather broad area covering a nice chunk of Mass - best merged into the parent cat. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anachem Award Recipients

Category:Anachem Award Recipients - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#AWARD, this looks like overcategorization. There is no article about the award, Anachem Award. The subject is already dealt with by a template, which is probably sufficient for a borderline non-notable award. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==== Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) ====
-:[[:Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)]] - {{lc1|USS Triton (SSRN-586)}}<br />
+: '''Propose deleting''' [[:Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)]] - {{lc1|USS Triton (SSRN-586)}}<br />
+: '''Propose renaming''' [[:Category:Triton class submarines]] to [[:Category:Triton clas submarines (1958)]]
 :'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete'''. Looks like overcategorization. The article about the ship should be in {{cat|Operation Sandblast}}, not [[Operation Sandblast]] being in this category. This leaves only the main article and an article about [[Edward L. Beach]], one of its commanders. The article for this ship is also in an overcategorized {{Cat|Edward L. Beach, Jr.}}, so there is cross-overcategorization of all these articles back and forth in both directions. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Speedy delete''' - given that this ''exact'' category was renamed to [[:Category:Triton class submarines]] literally three days ago. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
@@ Line 33: / Line 34: @@
 *'''Retain -- strongly recommends.'''  I am the contributor who re-created the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586).  I was the contributor responsible to helping {{USS|Triton|SSRN-586}} article achieve its A-class article status, and as such, I was are the first person on the English Wikipedia to have successfully guided a nuclear power fast attack submarine article to A-class status and consequently received a WikiProject Ships Barnstar for my contribution.  I am not the original creator of the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), but I see its potential continued utility.  The USS ''Triton'' is a unique submarine linked to a unique event ([[Operation Sandblast]]), a unique individual {[[Edward L. Beach, Jr.]]), and a unique engineering achievement with its dual-reactor propulsion plant (e.g., [[S3G reactor]] and [[S4G reactor]]).  On the other hand, this new Category: Triton class submarine may very well be unnecessary and redundant since there are actually ''two'' Triton class submarines -- the USS ''Triton'' (SSRN-586) and the [[British T class submarine]].  As you can see, this new category does ''not'' address or accommodate this British class of submarine.  I created disambiguation page (Triton class) which does address this situation and I believe this an appropriate and more consistent approach than a separate category.  Therefore not only do I advocate the retention of Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586) as is, but I also advocate the speedy deletion of this new Category:Triton class submarine in light of the fact that the Triton class disambiguation page does the same job while accommodating the [[British T class submarine]] article. I also recommend that rather than go through this rapid deletion process, in the future,  we leverage the talk pages of the affected article, category, etc., to discuss the situation more fully among the contributors who actually created the relevant article, category or disambiguation page.  After all, this is supposed to be a collaborative environment. [[User:Marcd30319|Marcd30319]] ([[User talk:Marcd30319|talk]]) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 **Actually, an alternative solution is already in progress - [[:Category:Triton class submarines]] is currently at speedy-renaming to [[:Category:Triton class submarines (1958)]], which is the fomrmat that is used when ship classes have to be disambiguated, and should solve the ambiguity problem nicely. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
+***...Which I now see you opposed. Oy vey. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' [[:Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)]] as not conforming to any established category tree and also not as per the conventional form of disambiguating ship classes. '''Rename''' [[:Category:Triton class submarines]] to [[:Category:Triton class submarines (1958)]] per the standard form of disambiguating ship-by-class categories. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 ==== Category:United States Navy schooners ====