Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 29



Category:Lifer

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * lifer


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't know much about this band, but given that the category only contains the main article and the article about the band's only album, the category seems quite unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm not sure if the musical-groups category tree is one of those that allows for one-article cats or not. But I do know the first thing I think of when I see the term "lifer" is not a band. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – the album (which might well not be notable) should be in an albums category (and now is). Occuli (talk) 08:25, 30 September 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:Carnival cities and towns

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * carnival cities and towns


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of cities by event which is held there. The fact that these cities celebrate Carnival is generally not defining for them. And please, no suggestions for ! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom, it is nondefiningCurb Chain (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:02, 2 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:British L class submarines of the Royal Navy

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:British L class submarines of the Royal Navy to Category:British L class submarines
 * Nominator's rationale: This category's redundant name seems to have arisen from an assumption that the Japanese L class submarines were submarines of the same type - as that submarine class' category was a subcat of the merge target until I corrected that today. With that, the need to redundantly distinguish with the "...of the Royal Navy" tag has vanished. (This should probably be X of Y, i.e. "L class submarines of the Royal Navy", but the RN submarine cat tree currently uses the "British Foo class submarines" naming format predominatly, so that'll be for another time.) The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously right Peterkingiron (talk) 01:11, 3 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:Works about art

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Works about art to Category:Works about visual art
 * Nominator's rationale: I'm in the midst of cleaning up another muddle created by User:Stefanomione, this time about the distinction between "the arts" and "art." As the lead to the main article The arts clearly states: The arts are a vast subdivision of culture, composed of many creative endeavors and disciplines. It is a broader term than "art", which as a description of a field usually means only the visual arts. Ignoring this, Stefanomione had created Category:Works about the arts last month, as a redirect to Category:Works about art. I've changed that and have started to populate Category:Works about the arts, which I think can be useful as a parent to Category:Works about creative works (or maybe a merge: different discussion). Anyway, I recommend we rename this to Visual arts per main article Visual arts. Question, does anyone feel strongly that we need a the as in Works about the visual arts? Changed per Johnbod, below. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If successful, I think we'll also need to move the contents of Category:Artists to a new subcat Category:Visual artists, per the lead of Artist which states: An artist is a person engaged in one or more of any of a broad spectrum of activities related to creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art. The common usage in both everyday speech and academic discourse is a practitioner in the visual arts only. The term is often used in the entertainment business, especially in a business context, for musicians and other performers (less often for actors). We need to be as precise as possible in category names, and the fact that Category:Artists is exclusively populated with visual artists only indicates the problem. Writers, musicians and such are no less "artists," per main article, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've flagged this discussion at WikiProject Visual arts, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename differently per nom (but not going on the Artists category, for which a note is enough). However it should either be Category:Works about visual art or Category:Works about the visual arts, the former is probably preferable. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, that's what I had meant. I knew something looked off about my target name. I've modified the rename target per Johnbod. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And per Johnbod's point, it seems to me the parent article could be renamed to the equally valid and commonly used "Visual art," per WP:SINGULAR and WP:PLURAL, but that's a different discussion. And of course the fact that the WikiProject is named WikiProject Visual arts makes me think they've considered it and decided against it.  Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 30 September 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:Wal-Mart

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wal-Mart to Category:Walmart
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Wal-Mart has been renamed to Walmart. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  10:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree: per nom. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per criteria C2D - The Bushranger One ping only 15:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:28, 30 September 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:Military equipment of the Philippines

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


 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. —  ξ xplicit  01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * military equipment of the philippines


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's a large number of categories like this, but this is just the first one I've finally gotten around to tagging. Depending on consensus, there may well be more in the future. Basically, these categories group (in this case) aircraft, in a grouping that is non-defining and would be much better suited as an article. For ships, which have individual pages, "Naval ships of Foo" categories make sense. "Military equipment of Foo", "Weapons of Foo", "Military aircraft of Foo", etc., in cases where the aircraft/whatnot in question are -used- by Foo, instead of -developed- or -built- by Foo, however are overcategorization, very nearly at its worst (see the Thirty Cat Pileup at the bottom of AIM-120 AMRAAM for an example of how bad it can get - ugh!). The Bushranger One ping only 08:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – agree with the nominator. The inclusion statement "Military equipment of the Philippines includes all military equipment designed, produced, or operated by the Philippines" is too broad and should be changed to "Military equipment of the Philippines includes all military equipment designed or produced by the Philippines". However I'm not sure how this is best accomplished at cfd, as 'delete' doesn't work and a neat rename doesn't seem obvious (some of the ships are individual ships owned by the Philippines rather than designed or produced there). Occuli (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The ship category, I'm pretty sure, falls under other supercats besides this one; the "equipment of..." categories infest the cat tree rather broadly (and randomly, at times, with regards to what's included where); probably the best way to deal with them and get them converted to "designed/produced" instead of "used" is to nuke them as they're found and start afresh. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The 3 subcats, , are all valid (ie have some members which are designed, produced, or owned by the Philippines) and so there is a need to keep or rename Category:Military equipment of the Philippines as a container category. The aircraft should just be removed altogether. Occuli (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, esentially, it should simply be a case of recategorising the articles per "designed/built" instead of "operated", then? If that's consensus I'll withdraw the nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the above comments I've decided to withdraw this nomination and work instead on recategorising the articles in this category tree so that categories of this sort have the weapons designed and built in the countries in question, as opposed to blowing it up and starting over. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * comment From the purpose statements in the categories, this entire category tree involving many countries is for weapons that are 'designed, produced, or used' by the country. Changing the categories' purpose by removing articles is not the answer--there is no consensus to make such a wholesale change from the few people commenting above on the categories of one country.  If two category trees, one 'designed and produced' and the other 'used, are needed then so be it, but I am not advancing any particlar solution. Hmains (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll start a discussion at MILHIST about the subject. Since "used by..." is rarely if ever defining for a weapon system (and again leads to disgusting messes like the cat section of AIM-120 AMRAAM - and that's not even all the countries that use it! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 2 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.