Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 17



Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1 episodes

 * 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. If the new name sticks around for a couple years, we might reconsider.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1 episodes to Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  23:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave alone - The category is made specifically to cover all ATHF episodes and AUPS1 episodes. And not just the first 100 episodes. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: was the show recast/revamped/whatever, or only renamed? Because splitting would make sense then. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just renamed. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...awkward, then. I can see cases for both the single name and the...rather awkward...double name. Maybe Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force and AUPS-1 episodes? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine with me. Also note, see Talk:Aqua Teen Hunger Force for the attempted move to Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * merge. No reason to have a separate category when nothing changed but the name. The main article is Aqua Teen Hunger Force, so the categories also should use that name only. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.

Ships of the line

 * 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. Consistency is not the only goal; brevity is often desirable; but clarity matters more. Although two editors find the old name clearer, five support the longer name, and some of those explicitly find the longer name clearer. I recognise some good arguments by Cjc13 but there is not sufficient justification here for a different outcome from other recent CFDs in this direction. (Non-admin closure.) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ottoman Navy ships of the line to Category:Ships of the line of the Ottoman Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:French Navy ships of the line to Category:Ships of the line of the French Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:Portuguese Navy ships of the line to Category:Ships of the line of the Portuguese Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:Spanish Navy ships of the line to Category:Ships of the line of the Spanish Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Navy ships of the line to Category:Ships of the line of the United States Navy
 * Nominator's rationale: Disputed speedy on the first two. Per the recent Royal Navy mega-CfD, ships-by-type subcategories of Category:Ships of the Fooian Navy are preferred to be in X of Y naming format, which also conforms with WP:NCCAT's naming directive for categories in this tree. The majority of subcategories of Category:Ships of the line by country are already in X of Y format as well. (Note that renaming of the USN cats to the preferred/policy/CfD confirmed format is in progress.) The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the current names seem clearer. Having 2 "of the"s in the title seems clumsy and unnecessary. For some categories the X of Y format looks odd such Category:Destroyers of the French Navy. Cjc13 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen much more odd-looking cat names sailing through without a peep...and the "X of Y" is what WP:NCCAT stipulates for this tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think any other names are inappropriate then nominate them for discussion. As has previously been pointed out, WP:NCCAT DOES NOT stipulate the format "X of Y" for any tree. It only says that once such a format has been agreed for a given parent category it should generally been used for all the categories within that parent category and it lists categories where discussions have taken place. It does not say that it applies to all subcategroies of that tree. What it does say is that normal artlicle naming conventions such as WP:Commonname also apply to categories. WP:CCC should also been noted in particular "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding". . Cjc13 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both "Military" and "Ships" top-level cats, and the subcats of said top-level cats, are specified by WP:NCCAT to follow "...of Foo" naming format. And given that virtually all other subcats of Category:Ships by navy use X of Y format, and a majority of subcats of Category:Ships of the line use X of Y format, it would seem to me that "formats have been agreed" for this. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Formats are only agreed if there has been a discussion for that category. It may be that the X of Y format is not suitable for some categories or at least should be modified for some categories. Category:World War II ships for instance uses the YX format and comes under "Military" and "Ships". Are you proposing to change categories such as these too? Cjc13 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:World War II ships by nation is, in fact, in the "X of Y" format already - Category:World War II ships of Argentina to Category:World War II ships of Yugoslavia, inclusive, and without exception. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that "Y X of Z"? My point was if Category:World War II ships is okay, why not Category:Royal Navy ships? If really using X of Y, it would be Category:Ships of World War II. Cjc13 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But then you would get Category:Ships of World War II of the United States Navy, which is a rather awkward thing. The difference here is that "United States Navy", etc. are subsets of their countries' governments, and therefore agents of the countries themselves, and thus fall under the directive to have cats in these trees named "...of country". "World War II", not being a country or agent of a country, does not qualify for "...of Y" status. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly that is my point that unnecessary use of X of Y is itself rather an awkward thing, especially in this case. Secondly I do not think WP:NCCAT is so prescriptive. It does allow use of Y X format. It merely lists discussions for categories (not trees) that decided to use the X of Y format. Thirdly even then you appear to be stretching the definition of "...of country". Cjc13 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly a bit stretched, but no more than others, given that the proposed format here is used by a majority of subcategories of the parent cat here, by all the existing topic articles/lists, and by the vast majority of sub-sub categories of Category:Ships by navy. Also, NCCAT says Categories of topics usually in the domain of the state are named "... of country" - not "should be", but "are", and the tree topped by Category:Military is listed as one of the explict examples, with Category:Ships also being in a section stating "Subcategories of these categories are named "... of country" - not "should be", but "are" - note it explictily says "subcategories" here too. While "Fooian Navy" is not "Fooia", WP:COMMONSENSE says that "Fooian" topics, in trees saying "of Fooia", should follow the same guideline as "Fooia" itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By "subcategories" it only means the direct subcategories because it is only those categories that have been discussed. If it meant the whole tree there would have been a discussion about the whole tree. Personally I think there is a difference between "Fooia" and "Fooian Navy" categories and do not see why they have to be treated the same. For instance the Navy categories use Navy terms so if you use X of Y format you end up with categories such as "Naval bases of the Fooian Navy" rather than the more precise "Fooian Navy bases". The recent Cfd actually indicated a preference for the latter form in relation to naval bases. Cjc13 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean when "only those categories that have been discussed". I'd assume that NCCAT was hashed out pretty thoroughly when established? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NCCAT in that part is just a summary of relevant Cfds. The Cfd relating to ships was this 2008 discussion, Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 14, which does not seem much of a discussion. For instance there is no mention of WP:commonname and it appears to have ignored the format of most navy subcategories at the time. Personally I would have been against the changes. Cjc13 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note also the parent articles: List of ships of the line of France, List of ships of the line of Spain, List of ships of the line of the United States Navy. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be some consistency in article names before trying to get consistency within categories. Two lists use country while the other uses Navy. Cjc13 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But all use X of Y format, making that argument, while a valid one as far as the inclusion of "Navy" or not goes, a diversion from the point of this discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. There are seven categories with "Ships of the line of (X)," and only five of the current format. And nearly all the categories of this type are in the format "(Types of ship) of (organization)".--Mike Selinker (talk)
 * Strong Oppose, the current category names are clearer. The proposed ones are clumsy English, of the kind that children are taught not to do.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed ones follow virtually all the other categories of this type at Category:Ships by navy (except for the RCN and USN, the oldest no doubt, which simply are being saved for last); follow the guideline laid down at WP:NCCAT, follow the precedent laid down at this CfD, which renamed another Ships of the Line cat among its changes, and also follow the main articles that exist for these categories. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Personally I actually would prefer it the whole Navy tree used the Y X format as I think that works better, being more concise and avoiding things like "destroyers of the Royal Navy", and is more in line with common usage. Cjc13 (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I can kinda see your point - some of the names are a tad awkward. However, aside from the ships of the line cats here, the only holdouts from "X of Y" are a few cats in the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and United States Navy categories, making any renaming project to "Y X" a truly massive proposition (and, IMHO, better to standardise on the existing de facto standard, but YMMV of course!) . - The Bushranger One ping only 14:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If a format is agreed as a standard then the changes can go through as speedy. Cjc13 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After all of the above...it only just now sunk into my brain that the cats in question here had been subcategorised in Category:Ships of the line by country...when these are Category:Ships of the line by navy categories. I guess oblivious me is oblivious sometimes! I've created the latter cat and moved them there, creating national-level cats for the former where necessary, to maintain the tree. My position on the renaming remains the same, but I have to admit that this has the side-effect of inverting the argument for changing the names based on a majority, as the majority of subcats of "...by navy" is now Y X (3 to 5). So I'm striking that argument when I made it in the above. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks much better, much clearer and conforms to accepted category naming structure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 (of which 22 are USN subcats), indicating a very clear standard established using X of Y. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that just means that most of them have been badly named. Many have been changed from the Y X to the X of Y category without discussion. If a standard has been established where was the discussion on the subject? Cjc13 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a circular argument - there was no discussion about the standard, but there was no discussion because there was the standard - even before the speedy changes, the standard was already established through standard practice, hence the speedies. In addition, there was the discussion here, which closed with consensus to rename the navy-ships-by-type categories there to X of Y - including a ships-of-the-line cat among those. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was no discussion clearly the standard was NOT already established and is still not established. The Royal Navy discussion closed with some categories using the X of Y format and some using the Y X format. Personally I do not think that discussion showed a consensus. If there was an established standard then it was to use the Y X format, as before the recent changes that was the most common format. Cjc13 (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not necessarily require discussion. Consensus can be achieved through the normal editing process, which in this case, it was. And all of the ships-by-type categories in the RN discussion closed with "X of Y" - the "Y X" categories were non-ships categories; in addition, none of the categories it closed as keeping in "Y X" format were members of the Categories:Ships by navy > Category:Ships of the Royal Navy tree, with the exception of Category:Royal Navy ship names, which, not covering ships-by-type, is not relevant to whether these ships-by-type categories should be renamed. In addition, your statement that the "Y X" format was the most common format before the recent changes is not borne out by the facts - the majority of subcategories of Category:Ships by navy > Category:Ships of the Fooian Navy tree members were named using "X of Y" format before the recent changes as well, merely with the margin being approximately 500 to 100 instead of 550 to 50. (33 RN categories renamed, with another 20 having been renamed through CfDS being a generous estimate.) - The Bushranger One ping only 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support generally -- No one but a navy has ships of the line; accordingly (strictly) "navy" is redundant. I do not think the argument over cognate WWII categories has merit.  Putting a compound name (such as Portuguese Navy) in front of another (ship of the line) is gramatically too complex.  A change here however should not the a precedent requiring categories for frigates, destroyers, etc (single words ship-types) to be renamed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't having 2 "of the"s more confusing? I would have thought the current names were clearer. Cjc13 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename, "of the" always makes things more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Architects who committed suicide

 * 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. I do not see a particular consensus here. Since the category is part of an established structure it would be better to discuss them all together. Ruslik_ Zero 18:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * architects who committed suicide


 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection, as there is no systematic link between this profession and suicides. The notability of architects is established through their work and not strengthened by any particular mode of death. Previous general discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3 ended in no consensus due to the too general nature of the debate, and the suggestion was to discuss each category on its own merits. This category spams the parent Category:Architects distracting from useful categories. --Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nomination (put it better than I ever could) bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete a trivial intersection of two non-trivial characteristics. And if someone does dig up some evidence that a particular 'suicidee' or two killed his or her self because they were frustrated with their profession, well, join the club. It still doesn't make for a defining link. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keep for now as part of an established pattern. See Category:Suicides by occupation for all the related subcats, no other of which are being nominated for deletion. Hmains (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But when the "established pattern" was put up for nomination it was rejected in favour of discussing such categories individually. Seems like a bit of a catch 22 to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As explained well above. Neutralitytalk 04:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of an established structure and to aid navigation to the user of the site. Someone browsing the biography of any of these individuals may want to see if other architects suffered the same fate, and this provides encyclopedic info to the end user.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you cannot be serious. After you stated that "There's no one-size fits all approach to this. ... Each one should be discussed on its own" now you're arguing for the opposite. This kind of incoherency does not help Wikipedia. Maybe should think about setting up a wikitrivia website, where than people interested can search for blue eyed architects, architects who named their cats after another architect, architects who like to dress in black, etc. But here it distracts from our educational mission, and no, is not encyclopaedic, as you will not find that suicide among architects would be notable. --Elekhh (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "But here it distracts from our educational mission". Hahahahahahahahaha. Good one. How does "There's no one-size fits all approach to this" become the opposite of my comment on this CfD? Maybe you can explain that one, professor.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I normally should not reply to such an offensive and ignorant comment. You stated above "Keep as part of an established structure". Isn't that a "one-size fits all approach" by which you effectively say that such intersections should be kept because we already have a parent category? Does your comment include any specific element which applies to this category "on its own"? If you still fail to see the contradiction, I will have to doubt your capacity of judgement. Also please observe WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --Elekhh (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to insult you by explaining it. Thanks for your contributions so far though.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems a very useful category.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain? Is it because is clicked ca. 80 times in a usual month? --Elekhh (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the page view statistics are a valid reason for deleting the category. The category has been viewed an average of 130 times per month for the period June to October 2011.  The following table shows page view statistics for the category and the first and last four articles in the category; as can be seen a typical article in the category such as Heinz Rutha gets an average of 168 page views per month.  So 130 page views per month seems quite reasonable in comparison - after all there are only 17 articles in the category, so you would not expect thousands of page view for this category per month. By way of comparison, Category:Architects was only viewed 606 times in the last 30 days - I assume that you are not going to propose deleting that.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * align=right | Jun-11
 * align=right | Jul-11
 * align=right | Aug-11
 * align=right | Sep-11
 * align=right | Oct-11
 * align=right | Average
 * -valign=top
 * Category:Architects_who_committed_suicide
 * align=right | 120
 * align=right | 147
 * align=right | 127
 * align=right | 83
 * align=right | 175
 * align=right | 130
 * -valign=top
 * A.G. Bauer
 * align=right | 98
 * align=right | 93
 * align=right | 97
 * align=right | 94
 * align=right | 133
 * align=right | 103
 * -valign=top
 * Francesco Borromini
 * align=right | 4489
 * align=right | 2896
 * align=right | 3528
 * align=right | 3393
 * align=right | 5899
 * align=right | 4041
 * -valign=top
 * George Arthur Crump
 * align=right | 292
 * align=right | 297
 * align=right | 275
 * align=right | 257
 * align=right | 256
 * align=right | 275
 * -valign=top
 * -valign=top


 * Adolf Eichler
 * align=right | 95
 * align=right | 107
 * align=right | 141
 * align=right | 108
 * align=right | 149
 * align=right | 120
 * -valign=top


 * Heinz Rutha
 * align=right | 151
 * align=right | 168
 * align=right | 175
 * align=right | 144
 * align=right | 202
 * align=right | 168
 * -valign=top
 * Silvanus Trevail
 * align=right | 168
 * align=right | 170
 * align=right | 189
 * align=right | 342
 * align=right | 208
 * align=right | 215
 * -valign=top
 * Henry Jones Underwood
 * align=right | 70
 * align=right | 83
 * align=right | 97
 * align=right | 60
 * align=right | 93
 * align=right | 81
 * -valign=top
 * Alexander Wittek
 * align=right | 125
 * align=right | 149
 * align=right | 105
 * align=right | 121
 * align=right | 162
 * align=right | 132
 * }
 * Now that we agree that page view statistics are not a valid reason for delete or keep, maybe you could explain what did you meant by "very useful". --Elekhh (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The category is very useful because it helps people find articles they want to look up. Didn't you know that?  I thought it was obvious.  Category:Architects is also useful for the same reason - though it is not as useful because if you are not sure which architect you are looking for, you will have to look at far more articles.  If you know that the architect you are looking for committed suicide, then this category will help you find his/her article more quickly.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes in general categories are useful. But you're not addressing though how this particular category is not trivial and an overcategorization. Looking for an architect who committed suicide is just as likely as looking for a bald architect, or any other non-defining characteristic. If we would have a category for each of these, the really useful ones like architects by century, nationality‎, critics‎, theoreticians‎, would get lost among the irrelevant ones. --Elekhh (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not trivial; it is desirable. Next time you take a holiday, visit London, and go for long walks around the centre looking at buildings. You will see that there are many beautiful old buildings. But then you find a horrible modern building that was built in a gap caused by German bombing during the war. There are other horrible buildings built by people like Palumbo - for example No 1 Poultry.  When you have done this you will understand why Category:Architects who committed suicide is not a trivial intersection - it is highly desirable - one that the architects of horrible buildings should be encouraged to join.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Are you seriously suggesting we should create Category:Architects who should be encouraged to commit suicide, or that we should keep this category pour encourager les autres? :O I don't even know where to begin with that one... Robofish (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the nomination, but I would like to point out that categories, as a whole, get very few hits - they're honestly much more useful to editors than readers, many times. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the nomination, but I would like to point out that categories, as a whole, get very few hits - they're honestly much more useful to editors than readers, many times. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A trivial intersection of two characteristics which are independently defining. Being an architect is defining; committing suicide is defining. Being an architect who committed suicide is a trivial combination of the two. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial intersection, unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - We have Category:Suicides by occupation, as a nicely developed category, Architects are not a particularly weird occupation, so it seems to fit the category OK. And seriously, I can't ever see anyone (who doesn't visit these pages) being happy that Wikipedia DOESN'T have that category.  "Oh" they will say, "that architect committed suicide.... How useful it is that I don't know which other architects did" Mike Young (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And they could find the answer here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivial intersection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Alternative medicine meta articles

 * 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: author requested deletion. --  Menti  fisto  22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * alternative medicine meta articles


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No objection to deletion. I am the creator of the category, and it's true that it apparently doesn't have much potential for growth. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have depopulated it and left a speedy deletion request. That should be enough. Thanks for noticing this situation. The category never grew, so it doesn't belong here anymore. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 college basketball championship team navigational boxes

 * 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) 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The first category above should be renamed to convey that is it to contain navboxes for championshionship teams. The current name includes the word "roster", which implies something entirely different, i.e. that these are templates to be used to build roster tables in the body of articles. The second and third categories above should be changed for specificity along a number of dimensions: 1) NCAA Division, 2) "team" to denote that these are for championship teams and not the championship tournaments, 3) "navigational boxes" to denote template type. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:American college basketball roster navigational boxes to Category:American college basketball championship team navigational boxes
 * Category:NCAA Men's Basketball Championship templates to Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship team navigational boxes
 * Category:NCAA Women's Basketball Championship templates to Category:NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship team navigational boxes
 * Support renaming per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for clarification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Aetna class ironclad floating battery

 * 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: do not delete, but renaming to Category:Aetna class ironclad floating batteries to pluralize. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * aetna class ironclad floating battery


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with only the main article. Expansion is unlikely. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ship class categories fall under the execption to WP:SMALLCAT as being part of a very well-established category tree. (Also, there are six articles waiting to be written to expand the category, anyway...) - The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I expect the articles on the ships in the class will be written one day.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of an established categorization scheme. I would also recommend categorizing the six redirects corresponding to the individual ships. Pichpich (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done--Toddy1 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Aetna class ironclad floating batteries. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Ironclad floating battery

 * 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:Ironclad floating batteries for now, without prejudice to the creation of Category:Floating batteries or a similarly-named category that could act as a parent category for this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ironclad floating battery to Category:Floating batteries
 * Nominator's rationale: Currently fully duplicates Category:Ironclad classes, but has a useful purpose at classing floating batteries as part of Category:Ships by type. The Bushranger One ping only 18:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The statement that it fully duplicates Category:Ironclad classes is not true. Some ship classes are or should be in Category:Ironclad classes that are not in Category:Ironclad floating battery.  Ironclad floating batteries were a specific type of ironclad - DK Brown described them as "among the most revolutionary ships ever built and provided British and French designers with the germ of the battleship."  It is therefore useful to have a category for them.


 * They have some similarities with 18th Century ships described as floating batteries, but were significantly different, having both armour and screw propulsion.


 * The proposed Category:Floating batteries is also open to objection in that the term floating battery can also mean a storage battery connected across an electric line or feeder to equalize the load and maintain the voltage constant.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps keep this one then (C2A'd to Category:Ironclad floating batteries) and add Category:Floating batteries (ship) then? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But floating batteries are generally not ships, they are barges... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but floating battery (boat) just doesn't have that ring to it. =P Seriously though, as warships they fall under the remit of WP:SHIPS, hence, ship. (I personally wouldn't be concerned about it being confused with the electrical battery thing, but if there's concern...) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:Floating artillery batteries would solve the incorrect disambiguator and confusion with storage batteries. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that's creating a term expressly for Wikipedia. "Floating battery" is the term used - not just for the barges, but also for ships like Faà di Bruno (which is here described as a monitor, but called a floating battery by Jane's). "Floating artillery battery" is a term that, while descriptive, is hardly ever, if at all, used - whereas Wikipedia's article on the ships is at Floating battery, with the power battery hatnoted as Deep cycle battery. So Floating battery as in vessel seems to be the primary topic here, and I'd like to have the cat at it if at all possible...however, if disambiguation must be had, the article gave me an idea: Category:Floating batteries (watercraft). - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NDESC -- it is not creating a term, it is a descriptive phrase ; Category:Floating batteries (watercraft) is also fine by me though. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You agree that there is still the need for Category:Ironclad floating battery.
 * Has anybody ever written articles on the many floating batteries that were not ironclad floating batteries? Because if they have not, then Category:Floating batteries (watercraft) is likely to be empty.  (I assume that a preamble to the category would explain that it was intended to cover those boats/ships that served as floating batteries that were not ironclad floating batteries.)--Toddy1 (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Category:Ironclad floating battery (renamed to Category:Ironclad floating batteries) should be kept around. And it can be a subcat of Category:Floating batteries/Category:Floating batteries (watercraft); I might write up a few articles on them myself if I can find the time and references. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Floating battery is what the article is called. But whatever the category is called, it should be in the plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Floating batteries. There may have been a few that were not ironclad but too few to requires a separate category.  I cannot support any rename or merger to "ironclad": H.M.S. Warrior is (I think) an ironclad, but not a battery, as were the two vessels that had an inconclusive engagement in Chesapeake Bay during the American Civil War.  Perhaps none of these belongs to a class.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there were probably lots of non-ironclad floating batteries - it is just that there are currently few articles on them.
 * Ironclad floating battery is a reasonable description of most American Civil War ironclads.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Except while we would describe them as such, the sources do not. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1861 John Ericsson proposed to build an "impregnable battery" to be called USS Monitor.  (See William Hovgaard, Modern History of Warships, p20.)--Toddy1 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:New Jersey Institute of Technology Highlanders men's basketball

 * 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. (Given that there was no consensus to rename these in a 2009–10 discussion, I think these were appropriately dealt with outside of the speedy rename processes.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:


 * Category:New Jersey Institute of Technology Highlanders men's basketball to Category:NJIT Highlanders men's basketball
 * Category:New Jersey Institute of Technology Highlanders to Category:NJIT Highlanders
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename both. I understand that the old guarde of category names stick by the tenet to always spell out names, but in this case it actually goes against what someone would be looking for. New Jersey Institute of Technology uses "NJIT" in all of their athletic team names, not the school spelled out, and fans looking up the athletic category would search for NJIT. A very minor secondary reason is for space economy; renaming the categories would be making them more user-friendly and less elongated. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename Team name categories follow team names, not their sponsoring university: Category:Penn Quakers not Category:University of Pennsylvania Quakers, and so on. NJIT is not ambiguous. Speedy-able?- choster (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried speedy-ing it a couple months ago and was shot down by someone who follows rules blindly and doesn't apply any common sense. I was pretty pissed that they were so near-sighted with the whole thing. Hence, this formal CfD. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per convention. Neutralitytalk 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support rename per article names and convention used by ESPN. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Television production concepts

 * 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 to Category:Television terminology. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * television production concepts


 * Nominator's rationale: I have a similar problem with the "production concepts" subcat (Screenwriting as a "concept"?). I've added Category:Television terminology as a parent and there's a merge possibility there, but we could also simply create Category:Television production, concept-free. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment A parallel to this is Category:Film production (which seems to deal more with hardware than software/concepts). There is also Category:Film techniques. Is there really anything about television production that makes it different to film production? Television may be more immediate but they still use the same basic tools. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the contents, I'd say there are a few things that could not fit under film production. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Television terminology. I don't see the need for subdividing terminology into production terminology, which most of it is already. Robofish (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Television broadcasting concepts

 * 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 to Category:Television terminology. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television broadcasting concepts to Category:Television programming
 * Nominator's rationale: "Concepts" is a vague scheme and it would help navigation I believe if this category was deleted or upmerged. Some might also wish to move some of the contents to Category:Television terminology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Television terminology, where most of these articles belong. Robofish (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Belz Hasidism

 * 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 renamed C2B/C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 11:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Belz Hasidism to Category:Belz (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chernobyl Hasidism to Category:Chernobyl (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sanz Hasidism‎ to Category:Sanz (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ruzhin Hasidism‎ to Category:Ruzhin (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Vizhnitz Hasidism‎ to Category:Vizhnitz (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Skver Hasidism to Category:Skver (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Satmar Hasidism to Category:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism to Category:Chabad-Lubavitch (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ger Hasidism to Category:Ger (Hasidic dynasty)
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistent with main article name. Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Reservoirs in Syracuse, New York

 * 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 per no objections. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Reservoirs in Syracuse, New York to Category:Reservoirs in New York
 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, little potential expansion with no established scheme. The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Cold War aerial bombs of the Soviet Union

 * 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. As a compromise, I suppose Category:Aerial bombs of the Soviet Union could be created to simply hold the Cold War category if we need to link this into the by-country scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cold War aerial bombs of the Soviet Union to Category:Aerial bombs of the Soviet Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Currently only has two entries, but has room for expansion - but should be part of a tree of aerial bombs by country, the roots of which exist, before subcategorising by era/country intersection. The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - acceptable subcat of Category:Cold War weapons of the Soviet Union; parallel to Category:Cold War aerial bombs of the United States. Potentially expandable. Robofish (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Modern aerial bombs of Russia

 * 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) 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Modern aerial bombs of Russia to Category:Aerial bombs of Russia
 * Nominator's rationale: Multiple previous discussions have indicated the "Modern" category qualifier is something to be avoided; this category does have a purpose though as part of the (partially-)established tree of aerial bombs. The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. I don't think there's any potential for ambiguity here; pre-revolutionary Russia had few, if any, aerial bombs. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 turboshaft engines

 * 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) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Aircraft turboshaft engines to Category:Turboshaft engines
 * Nominator's rationale: The qualifier "aircraft" is unneeded; Category:Turbojet engines, Category:Turbofan engines and Category:Turboprop engines do not qualify them as "aircraft", and shouldn't. Piston engines are specialised for aviation use, but, by and large, a gas turbine is a gas turbine. By-decade subcats to be speedied if passed. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment so the Chrysler Turbine Car, ship power units and M1 Abrams units are not specialized? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they're not - it's just the transmission gear that differs. See for instance Rolls-Royce Olympus - essentially the same engine powered Concorde and the Invincible class aircraft carrier, while the Abrams' Honeywell AGT1500, derived from the Turbine Cars' engine work, was tweaked to become the helicopter-powering PLT27. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:Gold status games
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * gold status games


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is overly broad and essentially will include every released video game. I do not believe a category is needed for a transient state like this. Games that never go gold are likely to not be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ferret (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - makes no sense to have this category.--EchetusXe 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - nonsensical. Neutralitytalk 04:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.