Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 27



Category:Books, films & other media about poverty

 * 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:Works about poverty. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Books, films & other media about poverty to Category:Media about poverty
 * Nominator's rationale: unwieldy page name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment note that the rename would work for just the sole article, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy. The three subcategories for doc films, books and songs would have to be moved to Category:Works about poverty per consensus at CfD that individual creative works are not "media." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Works about poverty, per Shawn in Montreal. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 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:Perfect numbers

 * 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) 01:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * perfect numbers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. (1) The individual numbers should not be in the category, as per WT:MATH.  (2) Previously deleted at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 14, but I'm not sure this is sufficient to warrant db-repost.  (3) The remaining articles are 3 in number (Perfect number, List of perfect numbers, and Mersenne prime), and are sufficiently connected that a category or navbox is not needed.  Perhaps a partial upmerge to Category:Number theory, if Category:Integer sequences is not considered adequate, for the topical articles, but I don't see the need.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think G4 applies here, but if an admin in WikiProject Mathematics disagrees, I'm not going to delete it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Concur with Arthur Rubin. This isn't the way number articles should be handled. CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: completely unnecessary as all the articles have good and clear navigation between them, and per the precedents given.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:20, 29 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.

Intersex works

 * 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: at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 5. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Intersex novels to Category:Novels about intersexuality
 * Propose renaming Category:Intersex literature to Category:Intersexuality literature
 * Propose renaming Category:Intersex-related media to Category:Works about intersexuality
 * Propose renaming Category:Intersex portrayals in media to Category:Works about intersexuality
 * Propose renaming Category:Intersex-related documentary films to Category:Documentary films about intersexuality
 * Propose renaming Category:Intersex-related films to Category:Films about intersexuality
 * Nominator's rationale: Attempting to standardize these to their various category trees' formats. We removed nearly all "-related works" categories here, except for the widely used "LGBT-related" construction. I think the term "intersexuality" is the right one here, but I wanted to make sure that made sense to people.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 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:Films depicting the 1906 San Francisco earthquake

 * 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 without prejudice to future nomination that focuses on deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films depicting the 1906 San Francisco earthquake to Category:Films about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake
 * Nominator's rationale: Or Delete. We don't have Category:Films about earthquakes, so having a category for one earthquake may be overkill. It could also be merged into Category:American disaster films.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there should be a category for films about earthquakes. This film springs to mind, and I'm sure there are others too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support both rename and parent category creation. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete based on my unaddressed concern that "films about" is a subjective criteria; how much "about" the subject matter must it be to qualify? and what reliable sources are being used to say that it is at least that much? Since both are missing in this (as well as all these sorts of categories), it ought to go. I had hoped that "depicting" was a category of actual film of the actual earthquake (a well-defined and noteworthy category), but alas depicting was missing the word "fictional" leading to the unhappy result that I would have to argue its demerit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:27, 2 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:Comics based on sports

 * 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 objections. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Comics based on sports to Category:Sports comics
 * Propose renaming Category:Comics based on wrestling to Category:Wrestling comics
 * Nominator's rationale: I wouldn't say these comics are "based on" sports. Instead, they have sports as a topic.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:40, 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:Paintings depicting death

 * 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 but then purge target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Paintings depicting death to Category:Paintings about death
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm well aware these two concepts aren't the same, but I question the value of the "depicting death" one. If a painting is not about something, what is the need to characterize it by that thing? Better, in my opinion, to merge the two categories and purge anything that doesn't belong.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If this had been brought up when I created the categories, 4 years ago, it might have been easier to discuss. It feels a bit pointless to discuss this four years later. I'm not opposed to the merger per se, as from a brief look at the categories others have added the wrong things to the wrong categories. It makes me wonder what the point is in creating categories at all if: (a) endless tweaks and renames and merges and alterations change things beyond recognition (including the annoying way in which edits to renamed categories get lost and end up in the 'deleted' side of one's contributions) - there is a difference between standardising categories names (good) and fussing over category names (bad); and (b) unless you carefully maintain categories the contents slowly morph to the stage where people misunderstand them. For the record, "If a painting is not about something, what is the need to characterize it by that thing" makes no sense. Paintings depicting death show the actual moment of death. Paintings about death are on the theme of death and include abstract and symbolic representations. This would have been clearer if the original category name (Paintings on the theme of death) had been retained. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete again, similar to my comments about "films about" above. "Depicting death" is susceptible to several interpretations; the creator's aim: "Paintings depicting death show the actual moment of death." was not the interpretation of many users. I wouldn't have read the category so narrowly - Descent from the Cross and the Pieta certainly depict death but not the moment of it. Same would be true of virtually all religious art showing Christ on the cross - unless some reliable source tells us that the painting shows us the actual moment of death (itself a difficult idea to determine), rather than shortly thereafter. So. That said, I think that the others' additions were a consequence more of a wider name than was meant not some idea to morph the category to some other purposes. Any way; paintings that have any depiction of death (such as a dead person, a shadowy figure on a Pale Horse - properly "Death", or a slew of bodies in epidemic, famine or battle) seems not a noteworthy category or painting genre. So even if I were to get over the problems of "about" descriptions, this cat ought to go because of its lack of definition in any notable way unlike "Slasher Films" is a genre; "Slasher Paintings"?? Not there yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 2 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: Wikipedians by service award (and all subcategories)

 * 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) 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Included in this nomination are: Delete all - First, I'll go through the history of these categories as I believe that background is important for this nomination. The first iteration of these categories, I believe, were nominated for deletion in October 2007, resulting in delete. In November 2010, another iteration of these categories were created and subsequently speedy deleted per G4. These speedy deletions were brought to deletion review, resulting in relisting at CfD. This CfD resulted, once again, in deletion. Finally, just last month in October 2011, a third iteration of these categories had been created and brought to CfD. Apparently nobody who participated in the discussion or the admin who closed it were aware that all of these categories qualified for G4 speedy deletion at the time. That CfD, however, ended up resulting in a rename.
 * Category: Wikipedians by service award
 * Category:Wikipedia Signators
 * Category:Wikipedia Burbas
 * Category:Wikipedia Novatos
 * Category:Wikipedia Grognards
 * Category:Wikipedia Grognard Extraordinaires
 * Category:Wikipedia Grognard Mirabilaires
 * Category:Wikipedia Tutnums
 * Category:Wikipedia Grand Tutnums
 * Category:Wikipedia Most Perfect Tutnums
 * Category:Wikipedia Tutnum of the Encyclopedias
 * Category:Wikipedia Labutnums
 * Category:Wikipedia Most Pluperfect Labutnums
 * Category:Wikipedia Labutnum of the Encyclopedias
 * Category:Wikipedia Illustrious Looshpahs
 * Category:Wikipedia Auspicious Looshpahs
 * Category:Wikipedia Redoubtable Tognemes

Needless to say, this is bothersome. I wholeheartedly agree that consensus can change, but I believe such a determination would have to be brought up in deletion review, not CfD again. Nonetheless, since the "latest" deletion discussion no longer results in these categories being deleted, G4 deletion is no longer an option, so I think the only real option right now is to bring this discussion here or at DRV. And since no deletions have actually occurred, this seems like the best venue although I'm still bothered by the thought that these were created out of process.

All that being said, I believe we got it right the first couple times at CfD resulting in these categories being deleted. The standard for keeping user categories on Wikipedia is that categories need to have an encyclopedia-benefiting use to be kept. That is, to say, that specifically grouping a type of user would be beneficial to the encyclopedia for someone to search through a list of such users to seek them out for such an encyclopedia-benefiting use.

No such use can be had from any of these categories. Nobody is specifically going to be looking for a Wikipedia Tutnum, for example, for some sort of encyclopedic purpose. Even if some legitimate reason were found, I'd imagine someone would be hard pressed to seek out a "Tutnum" vs, say, a "Grand Tutnum". At the very minimum there is no reason to distinguish each individual award level in its own category for an encyclopedic purpose. The only thing these awards distinguish is number of edits and number of years having been registered. There would be no encyclopedic reason to go specifically seek out someone in these categories that I can think of. WP:USERCAT makes it clear that these user categories are innapropriate.

The awards themselves are not an issue. Nobody is out to delete those here. User categories, unlike Wikipedia space content such as the awards themselves, have different standards from Wikipedia space. That is, to say, that stuff that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia is inappropriate when it comes to categories. There are numerous other arguments made in the past deletion discussions that I encourage anyone interested to read, but in my book the issue really boils down to these categories simply violating WP:USERCAT - To quote from the lead paragraph, "...Considering the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social networking site or personal webhost, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia."

While for me that is the crux of the issue, I will also quote User:Black Falcon's nomination rationale from the November 2010 nomination, as he does a good job of presenting further arguments for deletion:


 * In my view, there are four distinct but not unrelated reasons to delete the categories:
 * Categorizing users by number of edits and time served is arbitrary and uninformative. The cutoff thresholds for the Service Award levels are arbitrary numbers (e.g., 12,000 edits and 2½ years served), so the distinction between a Senior Editor and a Master Editor, for example, is also defined arbitrarily. In addition, number of edits and time served provide little meaningful information about a user—they say nothing about a user's interests, knowledge, willingness or ability to collaborate or the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia. For these reasons, and also because of how users used the userboxes—many used multiple userboxes and, thus, were in multiple categories, and a number used userboxes indicating 10 or more years of service (i.e., before Wikipedia was created)—categorization by Service Award level is not informative.
 * Categorizing users by "level" or status creates a false sense of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Identifying some users "Senior Editors" or "Master Editors" and others as "Novice Editors" or "Apprentice Editors" implies a hierarchy which does not exist. I realize that the userboxes do this anyway, but categorization is a step even beyond that. Users are free to declare almost anything about themselves on their user pages via userboxes, but creating a grouping of users (which is what a category does) based on "level" gives more formality to what otherwise would be an informal declaration. In my opinion, this runs counter to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Categorizing users by Service Award level does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. User categories are intended primarily to group users by characteristics which could facilitate coordination and collaboration between editors. Service Award level is not such a characteristic. Also, user categories are meant to be browsed, not merely to be bottom-of-the-page supplements to userboxes, and there is little or no reason that anyone would need to or benefit from browsing categories of users grouped by arbitrary threshholds of edit count and time served.
 * For the stated reasons, and per the weight of previous precedent and consensus (user categories which group users by activity, including Cat:Wikipedians by number of edits, or awards are routinely deleted; see here and here for a list of related discussions), I believe that the Service Awards categories should remain deleted.

VegaDark (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the closer of the previous nomination, I can say I was aware of the previous nominations. The discussion was clearly split, so instead of creating another situation where they would be recreated yet again, I gave them what I thought was the proper naming structure and sent them to their own container category. I have no objection to the discussion being opened again, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per my reasoning at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 2. As the nominator there, I'm still convinced that these categories should be cdeleted. I fail to see how this information is important enough for coordination and collaboration between users. There is no possible question I can think of that one would ask a Grand Tutnum but not a Grognard Extraordinaire (several ranks below), nor vica versa. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all, with added salt At the risk of seeming like a fly-by delete-voter, I have to agree with the above comments especially the nom and that made by Old Mishehu. The arguments are sound. Also, speaking from my own experience, if I'm at all curious about an editor's level of expertise in editing WP, I look at their talk page (e.g. number of warnings, or collaboration style); check whether they're an admin, reviewer etc (degree of trust given by community); and check when they established their account; among several other methods. There are many, and better, indicators of WP expertise, especially when considered all together. Categorising users by "service award" does not, in my experience, do the job for which it seems to have been intended. I also suggest salting, but dependent on the relative strength of the arguments offered in favour of deleting.  Claret Ash  12:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does anyone use these to navigate? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. The categories themselves serve no purpose I can see (anyone care to refute?) other than needlessly cluttering up the Categories section.  Nik the  stoned  16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all - This has the encyclopedia-benefiting feature of allowing serious content creators to find other serious content creators without having to parse the list of millions of registered accounts. Elimination of these categories makes not sense at all, this does not clog up anything, they are a set of backstage, user-page categories. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't stand under its own weight. If the purpose is for "serious content creators" to find each other, then there are far more accurate ways to achieve this, some of which I alluded to above. This is especially the case when we consider that the service awards only group people by account age and edit count, neither of which indicate degree of WP expertise. Also, as many serious Wikipedists do not use the categories (either directly, or indirectly via the userbox), and possibly do not intend to use them, the categories will never be so useful.  Claret Ash  22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What SHOULD happen, by the way, is that the silly names should be abandoned in favor of the serious names ("Master Editor," etc.). Carrite (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there. I added a service award userbox to my userpage ages ago but specifically set it not to show the silly names (Apparently, I'm now a yeoman editor). Imagine my surprise and annoyance when I found it had automatically added me to the "Grognard Extraordinaire" category. That's how I discovered this discussion. If the discussion is closed in favour of keeping the cats, I'd support changing their names or having the silly names as redirects to the not-so-silly alternatives.  Claret Ash  22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Everyone here has missed a very obvious flaw in the entire discussion: Editors don't need to qualify to put themselves in these categories, they can just flippantly add themselves to varying levels of "expertise" by putting "Category:Wikipedia ThisOrThat" on the bottom of their own userpages. I guarantee that if you went through and legitimately verified whether some of these editors do, in fact, qualify for the ranks they placed themselves in, a solid ⅓ to ½ don't meet necessary edit counts and time as registered users. Hence, if I wanted to look for a respected or knowledgeable editor on Wikipedia, I bet Category:Wikipedia Most Perfect Tutnums would be one of the least reliable places to actually look. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately true. And as it happens, it was mentioned earlier in item 1 of the quote from Black Falcon, in the last part of the nom.  Claret Ash  07:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I'm not saying get rid of the userboxes for these (e.g. Senior Editor III Userbox), because even though the qualifications are arbitrary doesn't mean they shouldn't be kept. I rather like the idea of "earning" one's way up the ranks, it is something I've looked forward to updating every 6 months for the past couple of years (I've now reached the point where it will take another full year before "moving up"). It's kind of like a video game, and it provides incentive. For that reason alone I think the userboxes are worth keeping. The categories, however, are a different story, and I'm more inclined to say get rid of them because they add nothing of value to the achievements and only serve as category clutter. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all, per above. The naming convention is meaningless and impenetrable to newcomers anyway. Let's not have practices that pointlessly make Wikipedia editing seem strange and inaccessible to others. bd2412  (Illustrious Looshpah) T 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Any categorisation scheme that places Jimbo no higher than a veteran editor is fundamentally flawed.  Claret Ash  23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and Salt'. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:11, 2 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:History of steamboats in Louisville, Kentucky

 * 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:Steamboats of the Ohio River. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:History of steamboats in Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Steamboats of Louisville, Kentucky
 * Nominator's rationale: And purge per Category:Steamboats of the United States. We have no other "history of steamboats" categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Steamboats of the Ohio River per Category:Steamboats of the United States. Louisville has a tendency to self importance and generates categories at the city level rather then more general categories.  Note that if either of these proposed changes happens, the articles will need to be looked at to see if all of the articles would belong in a renamed category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Steamboats of the Ohio River. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a much better idea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 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:Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament venues

 * 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) 01:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete big 12 men's basketball tournament venues


 * Nominator's rationale: Category created that really only has tenuous connections among arenas, since they all served as hosts to one specific sporting event (not to mention that it only has one article in it anyway). There was also a relatively recent CfD about an exact category like this for a different conference (can't remember which) so there is precedent in deletion. Lastly, it was created a couple years ago by a community-sanctioned user who created tens of thousands of pointless categories and who is now permanently banned from creating anymore categories. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:10, 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:Sail ships given steam 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: merge. The hatnote for the target category clearly covers the contents of the smaller category, so a merge makes sense. It's very likely this needs a new name, and can be nominated again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Sail ships given steam engines to Category:Auxiliary steamers
 * Nominator's rationale: Small sub-category that is clearly covered in the declared scope of the parent category already. The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Nice to see two categories having sensible headnotes! However, since the two headnotes appear to be identical there is no point in having two separate categorioes. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment doesn't "auxiliary steamer" also have the connotation of being a naval auxiliary vessel with a steam engine? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts first turned to Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Perhaps the category needs a better name; but in the first place they do need to be merged. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not merge Category:Sail ships given steam engines is for sailing vessels that were retrofitted with a steam engine, while Category:Sail ships given steam engines is for vessels capable of both sail and steam power, regardless of when the engine was installed. An article about a ship that was launched with both masts and a steam engine would only fit in the "Auxilliary Steamer" category, not the "Sail ships given steam power" category. So, yes, as Bushranger observed, the scope of the subcategory falls completely within that of the parent category, but the reverse is not true: the parent category isn't encompassed by the sub-category.  But, that's what makes it a sub-category.  I do concede 70.24.248.23's point regarding the potential confusion between sail ships with an auxiliary steam engine and steamships functioning as auxiliaries, but I believe that the ambiguity is in the language, with the term legitimately applying to both scenarios.  Nevertheless, I could see renaming "Auxiliary steamers" if people think that's appropriate.  But I don't believe that a merge is appropriate. --Badger151  (I'm not logged in at present because my computer knows my login info and I am not on it today - I'll sign properly when I'm next around.) --64.118.216.38 (talk) 23:48, 1 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:Medical-themed films

 * 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 rename, no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Medical-themed films to Category:Films about health care
 * Nominator's rationale: Cancer, drugs, hospitals, psychiatry, infectious diseases—all of that sounds like health care to me.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - "Films about health care" makes me think "about the health care industry" (or Big Pharma, if you prefer), not "medical dramas". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose per last discussion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_1. A film about Dr. Mengele's medical experimentation is medically themed, but not about health care. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had not noticed that earlier discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete medical-themed films? what's that? whatever you want it to mean. Ah, real useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 2 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:United States Naval Outlying Fields

 * 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) 01:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Naval Outlying Fields to Category:United States Naval Outlying Landing Fields
 * Nominator's rationale: Disputed speedy, disputed on the grounds that "Naval Outlying Field" is an official designation. While it is, "Outlying Landing Field" and "Naval Outlying Landing Field" are also official designations for the same sort of airfield, and even those designated "Naval Outlying Field" use the NOLF abbreviation, not NOF. (San Nicholas Field NOLF, for instance.) Given that all three titles are used interchangably, the main article is at Outlying Landing Field, and that "Naval Outlying Field" is somewhat ambiguous, I believe this renaming is appropriate. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree, vote NO to rename. Outlying Field is the orginal terminology, Outlying Landing Field is not original. Changing this name changes the orginally Navy terminology, why change the correct terminology. Visit any of the references to any the Fields articles. LanceBarber (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Imperial Beach Outlying Landing Field, aka Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach; Naval Outlying Landing Field 8; Naval Outlying Landing Field Whitehouse; Naval Outlying Landing Field Ream Field; Naval Outlying Landing Field Washington County; Outlying Landing Field San Nicolas Island, and I could go on. "Naval Outlying Field" is sometimes used, but not always used, and since there is no clear WP:COMMONNAME between the three choices, the least ambigious should be used. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on your refs you provided, you are correct.LanceBarber (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still vote NO to rename.LanceBarber (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - "United States Naval Outlying Fields" is meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with the - er - field. "United States Naval Outlying Landing Fields" at least says what kind of thing it's about. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Northernhenge. Ambiguity should be avoided in naming categories. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:00, 28 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:United States Navy inactive aircraft squadrons

 * 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: upmerge to Category:United States Navy aircraft squadrons.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Navy inactive aircraft squadrons to Category:Inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons
 * Nominator's rationale: Disputed speedy renaming; the speedy objection was that, as "The words "inactive aircraft" are adjectives to the word "squadrons", current name category is proper and not necessary.". While this may be true, the current name of the category strongly suggests that the category is for squadrons with inactive aircraft; IMHO a better name is necessary and I'm open to suggestions if the proposal here is considered improper. (Category:Inactive aircraft squadrons of the United States Navy would be ideal, but none of the other cats in this branch of the tree are currently at X of Y...perhaps Category:Squadrons by navy needs to be changed to it?) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't see how anyone would think the category is for squadrons with inactive aircraft. That doesn't make any sense. What would that even mean? Sabre ball (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...that's exactly my point. It makes no sense and is meaningless, but it's the grammatically logical meaning of the category as it is currently titled. Something more along the lines of Category:Defunct riverboat casinos would make things more clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, vote NO to rename. Same as Sabreball said, and what I originally said on the previous log page... and what I said on the discussion page (that was deleted). Current cat name is gramatically correct. LanceBarber (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is it gramatically correct? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No different than, "large red ball". Still vote NO to rename.LanceBarber (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Large red ball" and "Inactive aircraft squadrons" are gramattically correct. "United States Navy inactive aircraft squadrons" is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per List of inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons, should use the same name.  Clay  Clay  Clay  02:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge -- I presume this is for squadrons not currently active, but which have been. Accordingly this is trying to distinguish currently active ones from past ones.  WE have pursued a policy of NOT categorising things by a current/past distinction.  Accordingly, it should be merged with the equivalent current category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I'd forgotten that at the time. Upmerge to Category:United States Navy aircraft squadrons then. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge support upmerge to Category:United States Navy aircraft squadrons MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 2 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.