Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Category:World War II air force films[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I fail to see why oc-subcats would be in the least bit necessary. World War II aviation film = goes in Category:World War II aviation films. Category:World War II air force films is needlessly restrictive (and most people will read it as "Air Force", I might add). - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:College football classics[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 from the other items in Category:College football competitions. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This subcategory serves no purpose other to lump various college football games together whose sole defining characteristic is that they have the word "classic" in their name. More bizarre handiwork from a user who was indefinitely banned from creating new categories two years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586)[edit]

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 and rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Triton class submarines to Category:Triton class submarines (1958) (Added by User:The Bushranger on 24 Nov 20:40 UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) looks like overcategorization. The article about the ship should be in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› 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 ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› 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]
Disagree - 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). The current USS Triton category captures those elements that the new Triton class submarines category does not. The argument of cross-overcategorization and overcategorization is highly overstated and it is a canard.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:37, 25 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
    • This renaming of the Triton class submarine category was initiated because of the British T class submarine situation which was accommodated by Triton class disambiguation page but not by this new Triton class submarine category as initially created. So, we are not only going through the speedy deletion of a perfectly utilitarian USS Triton category while the ignoring of an equally utilitarian disambiguation page, but we must also go through renaming process for this new Triton class submarine category that did not adequately address the British T class submarine situation when it was initially created. I happen to believe in economy of effort, and I think this total process to be a needless expediture of effort to no great purpose. Look, forgive my cynicism, but I know how things work, and I also know how Wiki-admin will almost always get their way, but as the contributor who actually guided USS Triton (SSRN-586) to its A-class status, I would hope for a more collaborative approach. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addressing your comment here - you are mistaken there; the original Category:USS Triton (SSRN-586) category had been emptied and tagged for C1 speedy deletion as empty, when I found it, and rescued it by turning it into the class category. Your comment there that "the original USS Triton category and disambiguation page (Triton class) adequately addressed the British T class submarine situation." is, unfortunately, not validated by the facts - the existence of a disambiguation page, and its contents, are irrelevant to disambiguating categories, ships-by-class categories are disambiguated by launch date and/or navy, not by having one refer to the individual ship that the class consists of. (In addition, this is not speedy deletion.) - The Bushranger One ping only 13:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, for the sake of examination, let's assume that everything in the above is true, particularly the fact that the original USS Triton category was empty. Well, the current, newly-reconstituted USS Triton category is now re-populated, and the original raison d'etre for the rescue mission (i.e., the creation single-ship category - Triton class submarines) is now no longer valid. In fact, the Triton class submarines category only references to the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article while the current, newly-reconstituted USS Triton category not only refers to the USS Triton but also articles on Operation Sandblast, Edward L. Beach, Jr., the S3G reactor, and the S4G reactor, all uniquely associated with the submarine USS Triton. Also, while examining the Category:Categories named after ships page, I note that every U.S. naval (USS) single-ship category has been flagged for deletion, but no other single-ship categories are so flagged for deletion. While the case can be made that the other single-ship categories are well populated with cross-referenced articles and media, and the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) and USS Nevada (BB-36) single-ship categories are not so populated, the same cannot be said with the USS Triton single-ship category. Finally, regarding the Triton class itself, although three to seven additional units were considered, the only ship that was ever authorized for construction was the USS Triton itself. In fact, several units of the proposed USS Permit (SSGN-596) class of second-generation nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines were actually authorized and construction begun, but following the cancellation of the Regulus II cruise missile program, these boats were re-authorized as Thresher-class second-generation nuclear-powered submarines. So, Triton was a single ship, like other first-generation U.S. Navy nuclear-powered submarines like the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), USS Seawolf (SSN-575), and USS Halibut (SSGN-587), rather than series production first-generation nuke boats like the Skate-class submarines. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After having similar cats pointed out to me by Ed, I'm striking my delete !vote for the main category being discussed here. I, personally, believe that it (and the USS Nautilus category he pointed out as precedent) should be at Foobar class submarines (date if necessary) categories, a la Category:Bainbridge class cruisers (for another single-ship class with additional information), but I won't oppose a !keep here. That said the class cat needs to be disambiguated and/or merged. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Navy schooners[edit]

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 all, in view of majority support for a new standard. (Non-admin closure.) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Albums recorded in Austin[edit]

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 as nominated for now; a new discussion to consider deletion or reworking these in accordance with User:Occuli's suggestion is probably in order, though. This close is without prejudice to a new nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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.

Critics[edit]

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 to delete. There seems to be a desire to judge these individually, so feel free to relist them one at a time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Adventism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Christian Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Mormonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of religions or philosophies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Sōka Gakkai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Critics of Objectivism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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]

RATIONALE UPDATED: Propose deletion of all the above related categories, added at this time in the interest of inclusion, fairness and consistency, in light of comments by T. Anthony and Good Ol’factory. I hold to my previous comment that these are non-notable, subjective and marginal intersections (i.e. there are, to my knowledge, no categories such as, say, Critics of Christianity, Critics of Islam, Critics of Roman Catholicism, Critics of Eastern Catholicism, etc.) No offense to anybody, just trying to explain my rationale, but I am sure there are others who could do so more encyclopaedically. Also, singling out categories (i.e. Critics of the LaRouche Movement and Category:Critics of Iglesia ni Cristo) piecemeal, one by one makes no sense. Better to do all at once, I think. Quis separabit? 16:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Creators of categories added on today have all been notified. Quis separabit? 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why was ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Critics of Mormonism omitted? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops my bad. I didn't see that one. Added it. Quis separabit? 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but these categories should be for people who have made a point of seeking to undermine the core beleifs, not those who have made some bland crticism of them (which would be non-defining). The converse is the academic discipline of apologetics. If I merely say that the Latter Day Saints are wrong in theri beliefs, that is a mere statement of my beliefs and non-defining. On the other hand, if I write a book (or series of books) seeking to demolish the basis of theri beliefs, it is clearly defining and should have a category. Perhaps "critics" is not the best word, but it is the one WP came up with in previous debates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your defense is somewhat provisional (pardon the expression) or conditional, if you will, with caveats in your analysis, so shouldn't each category be explored individually? Some are almost unpopulated. And if the term "Critics" is not right, then a name change for those categories which deserve to remain should be explored. Category:Critics of Judaism really does not sound very encyclopaedic, for example. What about just keeping Category:Critics of religions or philosophies?? Quis separabit? 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well like I said, let's just keep Category:Critics of religions or philosophies. Quis separabit? 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - The problem is that all philosophers are critics of the philosophies that came before them. Having a "Critics of philosophies" is just not useful or possible. Perhaps if the day comes that there are a bunch of categories like "Critics of Aristotelianism" or "Critics of Hegelianism" etcetera then maybe well have something. The critics of religions do seem to justify having a supracategory though.Greg Bard (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to where?? Quis separabit? 20:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Noble jurisdictions[edit]

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 all.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.

American nobility[edit]

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 per nom. (Processing will be delayed until Category:Nobility of the Americas is renamed. ) Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Hydroelectric power companies in the United Kingdom[edit]

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: Typo creation; deleted by request of sole creator and author. The Bushranger One ping only 06:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly named category, and should have been Category:Hydroelectric power companies of the United Kingdom. Simply delete. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviators killed in shootdowns[edit]

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 per no opposition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aviators killed in shootdowns to Category:Aviators killed by being shot down
Nominator's rationale: More grammatically correct, and a better match for parent Category:Shot-down aviators and similar Category:Military personnel killed by friendly fire‎. The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:United States Football League flagship radio stations[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:United States Football League flagship radio stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
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:Atlantic Championship drivers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Royalbroil 04:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose. Formula Atlantic and the Atlantic Championship are two separate things. Formula Atlantic was a set of rules used in several championships around the world, including the Atlantic Championship in North America. There's not much use in a category for drivers of a certain formula regardless of series (note that Category:Formula Three drivers is divided up by championship). I've gone ahead and created a proper category tree for the Atlantic Championship, which may have been the source of the confusion. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this can be withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedian sex workers[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedian sex workers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
  • Query - on what basis do you argue that this is a "hoax", given that this is a category to which users generally add themselves?
  • Did you contact these people or even the creator of the category? It's not like Drmies (talk · contribs) is this evil vandal that can't listen to reason. I have to agree that I seriously doubt that any of the current members are actually sex-workers but then the worst I can say about this category is that it should be considered as empty and deleted on those grounds. If used in good faith, it's as reasonable category as any in Category:Wikipedians by profession but this just shows how silly they all are given that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. In the end, this is more of a behaviour issue than a content issue so CfD is ill-equipped to solve it. Pichpich (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at the Mount of Olives (Jewish)[edit]

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 ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Burials at the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.. brewcrewer (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]

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."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish someone would explain why "Jewish" is necessary, but whatever.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Anachem Award Recipients[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anachem Award Recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_23&oldid=1151013889"