Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7



Category:Barwell F.C players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Renamed per WP:C1. — This, that, and the other (talk)  08:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Barwell F.C players to Category:Barwell F.C. players
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The from category is missing the dot after the capital C. Boissière (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge – so it is. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 9 October 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:Eastern Orthodox Legislators

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * eastern orthodox legislators


 * Category:Eastern Orthodox Parliamentarians (Canada)
 * Category:Eastern Orthodox Members of Congress (U.S.)
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. A cross-categorization of legislators by religious denomination. Already being misused by putting living people in it without citation of self-identification. There are no other cross-categorization of legislators by denomination or even by major religions, why should this denomination be an exception? Yworo (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The issue is not the category; the issue is the individuals placed in it.  I agree that self-identification should be fully documented.  IMHO, it should be possible to do this for many of these names.  (Legislators of Greek ancestry, for example, tend to identify themselves as Orthodox Christians, as it is politically beneficial in communities with strong Greek ethnic communities such as Astoria, New York and Melbourne, Victoria.  Since the category is only twenty-four hours old, the solution is to keep the category and remove entries which are not appropriately documented.  Paterakis (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a non-notable intersection, for the most part. To a very large degree, this particular version is simply a placeholder for national origin; in other cases (e.g. all the many, many Anglicans) there's no expectation that an Anglican politician's church allegiance means something about his legislative record. There are a relative few notable cases where members of certain churches and religions have had to overcome prejudices in order to get elected, but I think it's extremely safe to say that few Marylanders knew that Paul Sarbanes was Orthodox. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. We've considered this type of intersection before, and we've always decided to delete, AFAIK. I have added the subcategories to the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 20 October 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:Pulmonary function

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pulmonary function to Category:Pulmonary function testing
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename This is actually a textbook case of speedy renaming since the corresponding article is Pulmonary function testing. However, I'd like to have some input on the relevance of this category. I'm not convinced it's worth keeping. Pichpich (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I could agree with renaming, and you're probably right about its relevance. As a category, its relevant but it would only have at most, 20 articles in it; so it might be better to make this a sub-category of the Category:Respiratory therapy? Je.rrt (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Respiratory science and research as a replacement category would be good. Considering Respiratory Science is regarded as the term internationally as descriptive of the entire scope of pulmonary function testing and research, as a sub-category of respiratory therapy/respiratory care. Kastyn.rrt (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ xplicit  19:25, 7 October 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 aircraft of the Australian Army

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * modern aircraft of the australian army


 * Nominator's rationale: Another user based aircraft category, previous incarnation was deleted at Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9. Due to the large numbers of users it is just not encyclopedic to have a category for every user which may involve over 70 categories on some aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - by-nation aircraft/weapon categories should be by manufacturer/designer, not by user, as the latter is only in a few, extremely rare, cases in any way defining. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 8 October 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:Vale class gunships

 * 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 rename, C2D. The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Vale class gunships to Category:Vale class gunboats
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:ENGLISH. This seems to be a mistranslation of the Norwegian "Kanonbåten". A gunship is quite different from a gunboat. Shem (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename C2D - this needs to be renamed on account of the main article being moved to the correct name, so it meets speedy-rename criteria C2D. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:59, 9 October 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:Fleet Air Arm aircraft

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * fleet air arm aircraft


 * Nominator's rationale: Category based on users not really needed, similar categories have been deleted in the past. Use of user based categories for example on the Lockheed Hercules could require more than 70 user categories (The C-47 would need hundreds). MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - by-nation aircraft/weapon categories should be by manufacturer/designer, not by user, as the latter is only in a few, extremely rare, cases in any way defining. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as the nom says, this practice has been opposed in the past by consensus. The category pileup in most cases at the bottom of an article would be obstructive rather than constructive. (And this case there is an adequate existing List of aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 8 October 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:UAS helicopters

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:UAS helicopters to Category:Unmanned helicopters
 * Nominator's rationale: There are various names for this concept, one of which is UAS (Unmanned Aerial System). I don't think we need to be that specific. Another possibility is Category:Drone helicopters.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. As category creator, I have no issues with proposed renaming. I created it to differentiate between manned and unmanned helicopters, and my experience has been with the term UAS beginning to take preference. Unmanned is clearer and better for categorization. --Born2flie (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename for clarity. Neutralitytalk 18:39, 11 October 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:Spitfire Helicopters

 * 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: Speedily renamed per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Spitfire Helicopters to Category:Spitfire Helicopters aircraft
 * Nominator's rationale: Per all other Category:Aircraft by manufacturer subcategories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Foo aircraft is the norm for this family of aircraft produced by categories. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename C2C. This can be speedy renamed per WP:CFDS criterion C2C. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:11, 8 October 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:Helicopter manufacturers

 * 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: Keep as is. Ruslik_ Zero 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Helicopter manufacturers to Category:Helicopter manufacturers by country
 * or


 * Propose merging Category:Helicopter manufacturers by country to Category:Helicopter manufacturers
 * Nominator's rationale: This category has no reason to exist except to be a by-country category. Alternatively, we could go the other direction.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Question. So where do the articles wind up? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In their own by-country categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology - Tidying up and moved some of the entries into country categories while this discussion was still open. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. I've updated the nomination to allow for the reverse-merge as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep as is. This is a standard category pattern used in many situations thoughout WP.  The parents are different and would not be correct with a single consolidated category. Hmains (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also added another subcategory which properly belongs under Category:Helicopter manufacturers: Category:Defunct helicopter manufacturers Hmains (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as is there can be other ways to categorize helicopter makers than just by country. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 09:13, 9 October 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:Medieval physicians of Egypt

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Medieval physicians of Egypt to Category:Medieval Egyptian physicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Without knowing too much about practitioners of medicine in Medieval Egypt, is it possible that some in the former category were Medieval physicians that practised in Egypt, but were not Egyptian, and that some in the latter category were Medieval Egyptian physicians who did not practise in Egypt? Rashidun al-Suri would seem to be non-Egyptian, but practising in Egpyt. Perhaps a merger of Category:Medieval physicians of Egypt into Category:Medieval Arab physicians would be a better option, or the appropriate subcategory in Category:Medieval physicians (that whole category needs to be standardised as well). IgnorantArmies 06:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge, per nomination. This is consistent with the other sub-categories of Category:Medieval physicians. As regards the comments of IgnorantArmies, although some of those listed may not have been born in Eqypt, the mere fact that they practised in Egypt should qualify them to being referred to as Egyptian physicians (the concept of citizenship, even if Egypt had been a sovereign state, did not exist in the medieval period). However, some of those listed are clearly not Arab, and, accordingly, a merger into Category:Medieval Arab physicians is inappropriate. Davshul (talk) 15:16, 11 October 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.