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 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 Royal Air Force
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.
However AK-47s are just as easy to put in these categories as anything else. The user of the equitment is not a characteristic of the equitment itself. It may be worth including in the article, but categorizing by it will just lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The catch is that those are some items - but not all, and "Equipment of the RAF" implies all. "Equipment developed for the RAF" might work - but "Equipment built in the United Kingdom" is probably best. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This category doesn't state what it's inclusion criteria are, but judging by the articles that are in it (and the articles that are not in it - e.g. Spitfire, Blue Steel) it's not a category for all articles about equipment used by the RAF, only for those that don't (for various reasons) fit neatly elsewhere in the category structure. For example the HSL article, being about a boat type, rather than about a ship can't go in Category:World War II naval ships of the United Kingdom and the Cormorant Network article doesn't tell us enough to categorize it by country of origin. Having what is, in effect, a miscellaneous category isn't a good way to categorize things. Before deleting this category we should check that all the articles in it are in whatever more suitable categories can be found - as a minimum they should all be in a by-period category. DexDor (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Strong oppose. The nominator seems not to have done any checking before commenting, and the other editors also seem not to have checked before commenting. :( These are not overlapping categories; they are a category and its sub-category. There are two category trees here:
The convention of Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality was set at CfD 2012 April 5. That was 10 months ago, so it would be quite fine to propose a renaming of those verbosely-named categories ... but it's very bad practice to delete one of its subcats because editors have an aversion to an established naming convention.
Comment -- My support above is criticised on the basis that not all religious sisters are nuns. I am not a Catholic and this is too nice a distinction for me to be familiar with. Perhaps, the right answer is reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the category that was nominated. I see no reason to let poorly named categories stand when they are brought up for discussion, but tagging a huge number of categories tends towards the tedious. All the claims to the contrary have never really been convincing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. JPL, first a substantive point: you appear to be unconcerned about the fact that your proposed merge would remove Puerto Rican RC nuns from any wider category of RC nuns. Why do you want to do that? Next, the procedural issue. You may think the category is poorly named, but you have offered no reason to suggest that it is any more or less poorly-named than any of the other similarly-named subcats of Category:Roman Catholic religious sisters and nuns by nationality. The category system would be unmanageable unless we had naming conventions, and you are proposing to break a naming convention without any reason offered for doing so. If you want to change the convention, then do a group nomination of all the categories involved. And there's no need to complain that it is tedious to tag them: if you find that too much hassle, and don't want to use WP:AWB, then make a request at WP:BOTREQ. That way, we both maintain consistency and ensure that all interested editors are notified, which will not be the case if one category is nominated as a stalking horse. If you want an example of why it is disruptive to try to rename only part of a set without nominating all the rest, please see the recent example of Category:Tipperary hurlers. It was renamed at CFD January 3 in a cherry-picked one-category nomination, but followup group nominations at CFD Jan 17 and CFD Jan 26 met strong opposition, leading to an ANI thread, a further discussion at the WikiProject, and finally a new CFD on Feb 9 to overturn the original. Much better to simply do a group nomination in the first place. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a general, not religion specific cat, the other category is a religion specific category. I still think it should be renamed but I see why we need both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category just adds another category level, without adding any real benefit. Sufficient to have an overarching category for Africa, with all of the individual nations directly contained in it. Note that all subcategories are also still in the main Africa category. Dawynn (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
Oppose as speedy. In the cases I have checked, none of the sibling categories follow the proposed format, so that is not a convention. The naming of these categories is a bit of a mess, and the proposal here may be a good idea ... but there are several conflicting conventions here, and it needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no case for changing these categories to match the format of the borough categories, unless the siblings within each borough are also changed. At least there is a certain consistency in the current arrangement, because all the subcats of Category:People by district in England have the same format, and all the subcats of each London Borough (part from the people) have the same format. This proposal introduces a third variation, which is not a Good Idea.
There is a 4th possibility. At CFD in June 2012 I proposed standardising all the subcats of Category:London Borough of Sutton on "X of Sutton (district)", but the preference there was "X of Sutton (London Borough)". I can see the merit of that outcome, but by using a parenthesised disambigiuator it is inapplicable to the boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham which need no disambiguation.
The current names are ambiguous because many boroughs have a district with the same name as the borough: eg Lewisham and London Borough of Lewisham, Greenwich and Royal Borough of Greenwich. The sibling categories also share the ambiguity problem and will also need renaming but objecting just to maintain consistency with an ambiguous naming convention is what is actually "not a Good Idea". Tim! (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is simply that any change should increase consistency, rather than reduce it ... or at least maintain a level of consistency.
It is not a new format as it used by the parent categories, carrying on a long tradition of matching category names with article names. Tim! (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname but to the form Category:People from Wandsworth (London Borough). I chose this third one as my example, as "City of Westminster" will be better than alternatives; likewise for Royal Boroughs. "Barking and Dagenham" (with its dual name) could perhaps be left without a disambiguator, the fact that it relates to that London Borough being explained in a headnote; likewise Hammersmith and Flhma with its double name. Elsewhere a disambiguator is needed, becasue the name applies both to the London Borough and the district of it from which it takes its name. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Sutton has already been amended. Shall we follow that for the others, i.e. "Category:People from Foo (London borough)". MRSC (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus includes all of them. If we were to treat certain boroughs differently for being unambiguous we would also have to do it for Brent, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, and then there are some less clear cases such as Camden vs. Camden Town or Haringey vs. Harringay. MRSC (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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:University book publishers of the United States / Canada
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.
Note I took the liberty of combining what had been two separate discussions regarding university book publishers in the U.S. and Canada as there seems to be no difference in naming conventions between the two nations. Split them again if there is any reason to do so and have them addressed separately. Alansohn (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Another 'performer by performance' type category that is not defining for virtually all of its content - essentially being a 'if it was used in Iraq between 2003 and here, stick it here' catchall. The BushrangerOne ping only07:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 Second Sino-Japanese War
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.
Nominator's rationale: Once again, for the reasons detailed below in the other noms for categories of this type. Proposing upmerge as these list articles would fit well in the parent cat. The BushrangerOne ping only07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- we have been discouraging categories on military equipment of foo war. This may be slightly different sicne it is all lists of Japanese equipment, but is still better merged with its parent, as it would always be a small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons as detailed in the Korean War and Kosovo War categories below. Service in Spain was not defining for any of the weapons categorised here. The BushrangerOne ping only07:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Delete as not a defining characteristic of the weapons involved. If these were articles on specific aircraft and mortars it might be a different issue, but the articles are makes of those things that were mass produced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - This is a borderline case, as it could be argued that the Korean War was significant enough to be defining for some of its equipment...but the key word is "some". The MiG-15, sure. The F-94 Starfire? Hmm. The F6F-5K Hellcat? Its Korean War service was so miniscule as to be a footnote in some histories of the type but completely left out of many. This is best handled as lists in the appropriate articles. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but listify first, perhaps selectively. For example, I doubt Colombia's equipment was not mostly American (or British), and the Austrialian equipment likewise: I have not investigated in detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete as discoraged award categories. Personally I think we should delete all award categories. However, these clearly do not even come close to meeting any proposed inclusion rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. I think that works just fine with lists and just adds category clutter to evryone involved. Anyway, there are way to many super long category names that have resulted from award categories for the current system to really work. I think it is best to get rid of all the award categories. I doubt it will ever happen, but I think it would be better then the huge number we have now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. It contains two types of sub-categories - by-date categories and by-country(/organisation) categories (for 3 post-1945 organisations). The by-date categories should be upmerged to Category:Military operations by period. The country/organisation categories can be removed from this category - they're still categorized in the more relevant Category:Military operations by country. This is a step towards fixing the partial overlap between "post-1945" categories and "20th-century" categories (an operation in 1977 would be eligable for both these cats, but neither of these cats can be a subcat of the other). Note: This is an alternative to merging the "post-1945 period" category - if that category is merged then this category should be kept. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do nothing The nomination makes no sense. It is to upmerge a specific period category into a container category of periods. The articles are not periods, they certainly cannot be directly placed in this container category which is only for period subcats. Hmains (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Vampire: The Dark Ages is a sub-gameline of sorts to Masquerade, or - if you want - Masquerade transplanted into a new setting. As the category mentions, many of the articles will be shared... as it turns out, all of them are shared. There are no articles unique to The Dark Ages. That being the case, it's only natural to upmerge the category into Masquerade. – Bellum (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no view on how to categorise these pages, but I looked at all the articles in this category, and most of them simply shouldn't exist. They rely almost entirely on sources from the game's publisher, and show no evidence of notability. If I had the time I'd take them all to WP:AFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the firestorm that erupts any time D&D monster articles, referenced only to the game's manuals which somehow get trumpeted as third-party sources establishing wide coverage, get nominated at AfD, better stock up on Pepto before doing that... - The BushrangerOne ping only18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge considering that the heading says that most of the content will be shared with our merge target, I see no reason to keep this category. Not every category a person can think up needs to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.