Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 21



Category:Movie and Television Directors

 * 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. All contents are in other director categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting movie and television directors


 * Nominator's rationale: Not needed. We have individual categories for "movies" (the correct term being film) and television. Also there's the issue of the caps...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Whilst categorising actresses, I was struck by the huge overlap between film and television actresses, to the point that the distinction barely seemed worth making; and now that new technologies have created a wave of digital video distributed by internet, we are moving into an area where the visual recording of dramatic performances (or documentary) should perhaps be treated as one medium, regardless of whether it is transmitted through the internet, television, or cinemas. That would be a huge discussion, but some day I think we will need to have it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Manually delete for now after checking that all pages are correctly categorised under and  . No point in combining those two when we otherwise separate film and television ... however, at some point I think we should reconsider the wider split between film and television.
 * I'd be inclined to agree with that; while there was certainly a much greater distinction in the past, I'm pretty sure there's not a single contemporary actor or director who doesn't simultaneously belong in the film and television siblings for their occupation, thus constantly pushing the categories closer and closer to violating WP:OC. And, in fact, the Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television recently merged its separate film and television awards — it now conducts a single Canadian Screen Awards ceremony encompassing film and television and web content — which means that at least some of the professionals are starting to look at things that way too. You're right that it's beyond the scope of this particular nomination; but you're also right that it's probably a discussion we're going to need to have eventually. Bearcat (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, without prejudice against a possible future discussion to modify the basic structure of the tree. (Although even if we do ultimately decide to go in that direction, it won't be capitalized or named this way.) For the record, I should also note that the creator removed the CFD template from the article about half an hour ago; I've reverted it back into place, but this may need to be monitored. Bearcat (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete While I could see use merging the various actor cats, I think directors are a different group all together, and would guess there is more distinction in the medium being directed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2013 (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.

Canadian ships

 * 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) 16:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Ships of the Canadian Forces to Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Aircraft carriers of the Canadian Forces to Category:Aircraft carriers of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Auxiliary ships of the Canadian Forces to Category:Auxiliary ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Support ships of the Canadian Forces to Category:Support ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Training ships of the Canadian Forces to Category:Training ships of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Destroyers of the Canadian Forces to Category:Destroyers of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Frigates of the Canadian Forces to Category:Frigates of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Hydrofoils of the Canadian Forces to Category:Hydrofoils of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Canadian Forces to Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Minesweepers of the Canadian Forces to Category:Minesweepers of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Patrol vessels of the Canadian Forces to Category:Patrol vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Ships transferred from the United States Navy to the Canadian Forces to Category:Ships transferred from the United States Navy to the Royal Canadian Navy
 * Propose merging Category:Submarines of the Canadian Forces to Category:Submarines of the Royal Canadian Navy


 * Nominator's rationale: Generally, in cases of categorization, when an entity that is being categorized by changes names, only the most current name is used in actual categorization, with previous names redirecting for it; for instance, Category:Florida Marlins redirects to Category:Miami Marlins. Exceptions are made where a significant discontinuity occurred; for instance Category:Boston Braves and Category:Milwaukee Braves are separate from (and subcategories of) Category:Atlanta Braves. The key being a discontinuity sufficient to make separate categorization worthwhile.


 * In the case of naval matters, we have Category:Ships of the Imperial German Navy, Category:Ships of the Kriegsmarine, and Category:Ships of the German Navy (defined as post-WWII) are all separate, as there are significant disjunctions between them (indeed, actual gasps in existence). This is not the case, however, here; the Royal Canadian Navy was, in 1968, merged (along with the other armed forces of Canada) to form the Canadian Forces, as the CF's Maritime Command (MARCOM). However, the force was still widely-if-unofficially/erroniously referred to as the RCN; in 2011, MARCOM was renamed once more as the Royal Canadian Navy. This was largely a paperwork-and-paint exercise on both ends; the actual force itself remained much the same. Many ships, also overlap, being categorized in both Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and Category:Ships of the Canadian Forces; also, currently Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy includes vessels from "both" RCNs, causing further confusion. (In fact, Category:Ships of the Canadian Forces is currently headered "This category is for ships commissioned into Royal Canadian Navy service."!)


 * Considering the "use the most recent name in cases of simple renaming" process that is widely followed, WP:COMMONAME, and the large overlaps at both ends of the CF's existence as a maritime force, I believe that the categories for ships of the Canadian Forces should be merged/renamed into/as ships of the RCN. Ships-by-class ("X class Ys of the CF") will be speedy renamed if this passes. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see no navigational benefit in separating out the 1968-2011 era, because so many of the ships involved will overlap into either the before-or-after period ... and using "Royal Canadian Navy" fits with WP:COMMONNAME. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all for simplicity ... and congrats to the nominator for a lucid and well-reasoned rationale.
 * Question: Were there any vessels whose entire commissioned life was during the Canadian Forces period? Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe there are a few individual ships (such as HMCS Huron) that were, but as far as I can tell, no complete classes. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, makes sense to me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and thanks for the answer.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- I assume that neither the army nor Air Force has vessels of these types. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all, per nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- Merge all. Trackratte (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2013 (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:International cricket competitions by year

 * 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: create head category  Category:International cricket competitions by period for the multi-year members longer than a season. Others can stay in Category:International cricket competitions by year whether part of one calendar year or a season spanning two years, following the example of Category:Domestic association football league seasons by year, and as part of . – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:International cricket competitions by year to Category:International cricket competitions by period
 * Nominator's rationale: Most of the subcategories are not for years. The category contains two possibilities: ranges like or seasons like  and . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I created the category many years ago and the rename makes complete sense as the earlier periods will never be decomposed into years. Jack | talk page 10:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with renaming, but more parent categories needed, as some (eg 2000-03) have only the one parent category Category:International cricket competitions by year. I would expect all of them to have another parent category eg Category:2002 in cricket for Category:International cricket competitions in 2002; and both Category:2002 in  cricket and Category:2003 in  cricket for the southern hemisphere category of Category: International cricket competitions in 2002–03. Hugo999 (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, "ccyy in cricket" is date-oriented and "international cricket competitions" is based on competitions. They are completely separate entities serving different purposes so don't be misled by the use of a date/period in the competition category titles. Check back through the hierarchy and you'll see how the structure works. Drop me a line if you need more explanation. Jack | talk page 15:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, the overall category Category:International cricket competitions by year (or season) is competition-oriented, but subcategories like Category:International cricket competitions in 2002 are both competition and date (year) oriented, so that say Category:2012 in cricket should include domestic and international competition subcategories for that year. As with Category:2005 in English cricket which is parented on both “2005 in cricket” and “2005 in English sport” so that 2005 events in English cricket do not need to have those other categories added to each article (and winter football seasons in England eg Category:2002–03 in English rugby union are subcats of two years in English sport for the same reason). Hugo999 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. It's up to you if you want to do it but you must do it comprehensively so that every "ccyy in cricket" from 1859 includes "international cricket competitions" and all tour/series articles are then removed from "ccyy in cricket" as a parent category. I see it as a "nice to have" which isn't worth the effort especially as the present structure does the job. If you do want to go ahead I would ask that you present a proposal at WT:CRIC and seek consensus there as the present categorisation structure was agreed by CRIC before it was deployed. Jack | talk page 05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jack, the category arrangement from 2001 to date is already different from the pre-2001 categories (ie 2001 to date is by year or July-June season over two years), and I do not see why it is suddenly necessary for me to extend the breakdown by year/season back to 1859! Most (but not all?) of the similar domestic categories are in the cricket by year categories eg Category: Domestic cricket competitions in 2005–06 is in both Category:2005 in cricket and Category:2006 in cricket. NB: the category Category: Domestic cricket competitions by year also contains seasons subcategories, and could be renamed too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 24 February 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Jack, this is basic category parenting stuff. It doesn't need prior approval from a WikiProject. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is a set of categories-by-period, with a subset of categories-by-year (from 2001 onwards). The logical way of organising this is to have Category:International cricket competitions by year as a subset of both and of a new Category:International cricket competitions by period, which can hold the wider periods. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC) But Category: International cricket competitions in 2002 is a year. Same with 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Every other type of YYYY in Foo refers to the whole of YYYY, and there is no way that editors categorising articles can be expected to guess that cricket's notion of 2006 excludes most of that calendar year. If they are not intended to be whole-year categories, they should not be named by the convention of whole-year categories ... but until that is fixed, they will function as whole year categories whether or not their creators intended them to be used that way. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Comment. According to BHG, the proposal "solves one problem but creates another one (of the single-year categories no longer being in a by-year parent category)". How so? A period can be a year or it can be several years. Why attempt to complicate something that is perfectly simple and so confuse the readers. As Armbrust says, just follow the usage in CRIC and there will be no problems. Jack | talk page 11:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The renaming proposal solves one problem (of multi-year categs being in a by-year category), but creates another one (of the single-year categories no longer being in a by-year parent category).
 * How is for example "2002–03" in Category: International cricket competitions in 2002–03 a year? From 2001 onwards the competitions are organised by season and not year. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Category: International cricket competitions in 2002–03 is not a year! That category belong in periods, along with all the other multi-year categories.
 * That's not true at all. The "International cricket competitions in XXXX" categories are not for the whole year. For example Category:International cricket competitions in 2006, is for competitions from April 2006 to (and including) August 2006. See: International cricket in 2006. And this is true for every other too. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the intention, then the by-year categories are not viable in their present form. In plain English, 2006 extends from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006, and if the cricket category is intended to cover only part of that year, then it needs to be renamed to reflect that. Otherwise it will be applied by editors to articles from any point in that year. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that's a matter for another discussion and not this. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is actually a matter for this discussion. For now, we do have by-year categories. It may not have been the intention to create them, but we do have them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You really don't understand. They are not year categories, even if they look like. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I understand very well. They were not intended to be year categories, but they are year categories. They are named just like thousands of other YYYY in Foo categories, and will be used like that unless renamed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No they are not. They just follow the usage within cricket, even if it's a little confusing. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not at all confusing ... but it is completely misleading.
 * Notified WikiProject Cricket. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It is clear that period is correct since both a year and a range of years can be considered a period, while a range of years can never be considered a year. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -- The problem is that cricket played in the southern hemisphere tends to be played over a season that covers the end of one year and the start of the next. "2012-13" does not refer to two years, but a season stetching thorugh the New Year.  An alternative might be Category:International cricket competitions by season.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I favour the use of “season” for the subcategory name, which can include both a season within one calendar year and a season overlapping two years (generally northern hemisphere winter sports or southern hemisphere summer sports); and no requirement that the season covers twelve months. For a category including both types of season see Category:Domestic association football league seasons by year (which I would not favour renaming to “Domestic association football league seasons by season”). Some seasons eg ski seasons may be quite short depending on the weather, and a sports season will frequently be half a year. But with professional sports and pay/pub TV, sports seasons are getting longer; in February (summer) in New Zealand we already had rugby on Sky TV in the bars. Hugo999 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment You're forgetting, that this category has subcategories like, which isn't for a season. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:27, 4 March 2013 (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:Burials in Santarem District

 * 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 a further renaming if and when the head article is moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in Santarem District to Category:Burials in Santarém District
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. To conform to the category's main article Santarém District and main category . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Burials in Santarem District to Category:Burials in Santarém District – C2A/C2B per /Santarém District Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is in violation of WP:UE. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UE specifically deals with article titles; your beef here is with the article title. This only matches the category name to the current name of the article and the other category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See above. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use WP:RM to propose an article name change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now at full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename as original nominator. We should work out concerns with article names on the article's talk page, not at CFD. It's kind of dumb that these have to go through a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename – the main article Santarém District and main category show no signs of any dispute about their names. Oculi (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2013 (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:Burials at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima

 * 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 a further renaming if and when the head article is moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Burials at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima to Category:Burials at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Burials at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima to Category:Burials at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima – C2A/C2B per Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is in violation of WP:UE. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UE specifically deals with article titles; your beef here is with the article title. This only matches the category name to the current name of the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like some hairsplitting, but then I would suggest that it be applied to the article, as per this MOS. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use WP:RM to propose an article name change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now at full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename as original nominator. We should work out concerns with article names on the article's talk page, not at CFD. It's kind of dumb that these have to go through a full discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename – perhaps concerns merely about the article name should be discounted at speedy. Oculi (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic in allowing such concerns to hold up a speedy rename—as when the article is on the verge of being renamed or when the article name is unstable, for instance—but when there is apparently zero history of the article name being discussed and seemingly no attempts by the opposers to start such discussions, it all seems kind of pointless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose' - If referring solely to the Marian title, then the standard references in English omit the accent mark. If one wants to use the entry on the town itself, then it becomes a double issue.
 * The common English spelling of the title, without accent, can be seen in a variety of sources, such as [] and []. For the town itself which is the source of the title and is a completely separate article, the official Portuguese government's own website for it gives it without an accent, []. On which front should this be debated? Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's really true, than why don't you initiate a requested moves discussion for the article? Armbrust The Homunculus 08:27, 25 February 2013 (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.