Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 24

width = "100%"
style="width:50%; text-align:left;" | < November 23

! style="width:50%; text-align:right;" | November 25 >

= November 24 =

==Various speediable Chinese dynasty categories==

: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 all except without the "the" before circuit names. In the case of jiedushi, this word is almost never capitalized on Wikipedia. The disambiguations to match the article titles are clearly speediable as well. However, the definite article in front of the circuit names is not supported by any articles on Wikipedia. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Zhangyi+Circuit this search for Zhangyi Circuit] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Zhongyi+Circuit this one for Zhongyi Circuit]. So I'm proceeding with these in a manner that doesn't use the "the" in those cases.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse top|nominated categories: 11 batches}}

Batch #1: Nominated only to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A

Batch #2: Nominated (1) to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A and (2) to add the missing English word "the" per C2A

Batch #3: Nominated (1) to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A, (2) to add the missing English word "the" per C2A, and (3) to match category names to the parent category :Category:Later Liang Dynasty per C2B

Batch #4: Nominated (1) to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A, (2) to add the missing English word "the" per C2A, and (3) to match category names to the parent category :Category:Jin (Five Dynasties) per C2B

Batch #5: Nominated (1) to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A, (2) to add the missing English word "the" per C2A, and (3) to match category names to the parent category/article :Category:Wu (Ten Kingdoms)/Wu (Ten Kingdoms)

Batch #6: Nominated (1) to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A, (2) to add the missing English word "the" per C2A, and (3) to match category names to the parent category/article :Category:Qi (Five Dynasties)/Qi (Five Dynasties) per C2D

Batch #7: Nominated (1) to decapitalize "jiedushi" per C2A, (2) to add the missing English word "the" per C2A, and (3) to match category names to the parent article Later Tang Dynasty per C2D

Batch #8: Nominated only to match category names to the parent article Min (Ten Kingdoms) per C2D

Batch #9: Nominated only to match category names to the parent article Later Zhou Dynasty per C2D

Batch #10: Nominated only to match category names to the parent article Later Jin Dynasty (Five Dynasties) per C2D

Batch #11: Nominated only to match category names to the parent article Later Han dynasty (Five Dynasties) per C2D

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|Copy of Speedy discussions}}

::::::::Consensus doesn't have to be unanimity. It looks to me that there is enough of a consensus there to proceed with decapitalization. Two or three editors can't stubbornly refuse to hold up the train just because they disagree. Combine the discussion with the overwhelming practice in other areas of WP for other dynasties, and I think it's a little retro not to just go forward make the change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

:Nominators rationale: Rename all. All of these categories for nominated for speedy renaming but were opposed by the categories' creator. I have set out the speediable grounds for each batch in the drop down box. I'll try to summarize the user's basic arguments against the changes and my responses:

:#Decapitalizing "jiedushi (C2A)": The user argued that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=prev&oldid=462104077 "they should not be decapitalized because Jiedushi is a completely unanglicized Chinese noun that, if uncapitalized, will be mistaken for an English one."] Response: We don't capitalize a foreign-language word just because it is a foreign-language word. It's a common noun like any other. The article Jiedushi correctly reflects this—it does not capitalize the term. It's similar to the daimyo of Japan. Notice that in the subcategories of {{Cat|Daimyo}} the word is not capitalized, as with {{cat|Fudai daimyo}}. Counter response against: user responded that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=prev&oldid=462279603 "uncapitalizing 'Jiedushi' looks jarring, if nothing else"]. Counter-counter response in favour: I don't think aesthetics is the central issue. I still believe that this is a straightforward capitalization issue per C2D.

:#Adding the word "the" to the circuit categories (C2A): The user argued that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=prev&oldid=462282707 "the article 'the' is unnecessary and cumbersome."] Response: I disagree. In English, we would say "FOO of the BARian Circuit", not "FOO of BARian Circuit". That's just the way standard English works.

:#Matching subcategory names to parent category names, when the parent category is disambiguated (C2B): For instance, the user stated that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=prev&oldid=462279603 "'Wu' itself needed a '(Ten Kingdoms)' disambiguator] [in {{cat|Wu (Ten Kingdoms)}}] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=prev&oldid=462279603 because there are other states named Wu in Chinese history. However, this is the only one that was in the time period in which the title of Jiedushi existed; adding '(Ten Kingdoms)' disambiguator] [to {{cat|Wu Jiedushi}}] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=prev&oldid=462279603 seems unnecessary to me."] Response: This is a specific issue that has been debated ad nauseum—especially involving the subcategories of {{Cat|Georgia (U.S. state)}}, {{Cat|Georgia (country)}}, and {{cat|Victoria (Australia)}}, and the conclusion was finally reached that C2B is to be applied across the board and a disambiguator is to be added to all categories when the parent category is disambiguated. This avoids having repeated protracted battles about when we need to disambiguate a category and when we don't need to. There's no reason for these categories to be treated any differently. The user suggested I was reading too much in to C2B, but that is how it is always applied.

:I've tried to make this as short as possible. I see it as a fairly clear-cut issue on all counts that would regularly be easily resolvable by the usual procedures of the speedy category rename system. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose; my arguments are the ones that Good Ol'factory summarized well, and I largely see no need to repeat them, other than that, as to "the," we are speaking in hypotheticals of how modern English speakers would have referred to an ancient Chinese circuit had they been present in time to speak modern English about them. But if we are to speak in such hypothetical terms, It should be noted that it will be extremely rarely for "Guangdong Province" to be referred to as "The Guangdong Province." I've also never heard of "The Washington State" as opposed to "Washington State." (I do concede on, for example, "The Irish State" or "The Czech Republic.") I still think that "the" is unnecessary. --Nlu (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah! But we're not taking about a "FOO province" or a "FOO state" or a "FOO republic" —we're talking about a "FOO circuit". And I've never heard anyone in English ever say "of FOO Circuit", except in these categories. It's always "of the FOO Circuit". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You've actually heard anyone say, in an English conversation, "he was the jiedushi of the Shannan East Circuit"? If so, I'm impressed. But I have to say I would have to imagine that it did not actually happen. And I've just realized why "The Irish State" and "The Czech Republic" are used; "Irish" and "Czech" are adjective forms, whereas "Washington" and "Guangdong" are not. Given that parallel, I would say that circuit names like "Chengde" and "Heyang" and "Xuanwu" are definitely not adjectives as such, and therefore should be used without the "the" article, much like all provincial names in modern China, particularly because they, like the provinces of doing, were first-order divisions under the state. (The only arguable ones would be "Shannan East," "Shannan West," "Lingnan East," and "Lingnan West," I think.) --Nlu (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I was talking about the generic name format "of the FOO Circuit", which is quite commonly used in English. The format "of FOO Circuit" is not commonly used in English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you're thinking of "the 1st Circuit," "the 9th Circuit," &c., note that those are ordinal adjectives. --Nlu (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, actually I was thinking of some sporting ones, but it doesn't really matter—I can't think of an instance in English where "the" is not used in the context. To me, leaving it out makes it sound like it was translated from Chinese who does not have a very firm grasp of English. (It makes me think of how 60 years ago Hollywood films used to stereotype the ways Chinese or Japanese people speak English as a second language: "Me ... go ... to ... store ... now," "He ... jiedushi ... of ... Chenge ... Circuit ...".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, adding "the" just seems to be awkward English to me. Again, circuits were, and provinces are, first-order divisions in China. It would be poor English to speak of "the Shanxi Province," "the Liaoning Province," &c. Would you say, "I am going to attend a speech by the Governor of the Guangdong Province?" --Nlu (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (1) and (3) (there is no chance of 'jiedushi' being confused with any English word I have ever met). I am not sure about the 'the': Wang Chongying reads fine to my eye without a 'the' in the various circuits (it would help to know what a Circuit is in this context); and I find [http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tang-dynasty-jiedushi-of-xuanwu-circuit-including-hephaestus-books/1105460839 this book]. Occuli (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (1) and (3), neutral on (2) pending further evidence. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:22, 25 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:Aviation accidents in major metropolitan areas ==

: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) 00:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose deleting {{Lc|Aviation accidents in major metropolitan areas}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OC - don't especially see how this is a useful categorisation by intersection. Major airports tend to be located in major metropolitian areas; crashes at them will, by definition, occur in the metropolitian area. Unless a specific city has an unusual number of crashes, going "finer" than by-state shouldn't be necessary. The Bushranger One ping only 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:Delete - dont see anything special about major metropolitan areas with regard to accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:Delete - begs the question of how to define "major metropolitan area" in non-arbitrary terms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Too vague - Which are and are not "major"? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 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:HC Slovan 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: Speedy renamed (C2D). The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:HC Slovan players to :Category:HC Slovan Ústečtí Lvi players

:Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the main article name and differentiate from {{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}| 1 }}|Stub types for deletion|Cat:HC Slovan Bratislava players|Category:HC Slovan Bratislava players}}. Darwinek (talk) 17:01, 24 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:LPGA Futures Tour ==

: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) 00:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:LPGA Futures Tour to :Category:Futures Tour

:Nominator's rationale: According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy&diff=462222097&oldid=462219718 Tewapack]: The "Futures Tour" was had several names over the years but the Futures Tour part has been constant. Also no other subcategory of this uses the full name. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 13:04, 24 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.

== Imperial House of Japan ==

: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 the first one per nom. Delete the second one. All articles in the :Category:Japanese Imperial Family are members of other subcategories of :Category:Yamato line. So, there is nothing to merge. Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Yamato line to :Category:Imperial House of Japan

:Then proposing upmerging :Category:Japanese Imperial Family to :Category:Imperial House of Japan

:Nominator's rationale: Rename/upmerge. The main article for these categories is Imperial House of Japan. (As of this nomination starting, there wasn't even a redirect on Yamato line.) The second listed category is essentially a category grouping living members of the Imperial House of Japan. As a current/living category—which for bio articles are strongly discouraged—I'm suggesting that it simply be upmerged into the parent category, which I propose be renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::::So what? Just leave it alone. Gryffindor (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::So: what User:The Bushranger said is correct: I don't see how the invocation of British Royal Family is relevant, and the category referred to appears to go against standard practices for categories. Thus, the upmerge should be made; hence the nomination. It would probably be OK to have an article about the living members of the Japanese imperial family, but we don't generally categorize such topics of living groups of individuals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - and I agree with the above, list, si, cat, no, when it comes to active/living. (One of these days I'll tackle the "Active ships..." tree...) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – current/living categories are hardly ever kept. Occuli (talk) 16:32, 25 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:Buildings used to confine animals ====

: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 both into a new :Category:Buildings and structures used to confine animals. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Buildings used to confine animals to :Category:Structures used to confine animals

:Nominator's rationale: These two categories have the same focus. One should be merged to the other; I am proposing to merge the less-populated one to the more populated one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:46, 24 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.

== United States Navy ships by namesake ==

: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 nom. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy territory-related ships to :Category:Territory-related ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy state-related ships to :Category:State-related ships of the United States Navy

:Nominator's rationale: See below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:*Honestly not too sure about these two. Are they really useful categorisations? I'm leaning torwards a weak delete pending arguments that they are. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:**They have fully developed category trees, so I'm not inclined to mess with them, other than converting them to "X of the Y" format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:***Fair enough. Neutral tending torwards support then. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:Comment just a comment but I had no idea until i browsed the cat that it was actually about ships named for places in different states and territories, something not obvious from either cat title. Also most of the ships in state-related cats have nothing to do with the state they are just named after for/after locations in those states, well it confused me. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

::*Perhaps, if these are kept, something along the lines of "United States Navy ships with names related to Foo" might be needed? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:* OK, I agree it would be unsatisfactory to delete the innocent container categories. However the whole scheme should go. In the meantime rename is a good idea. Occuli (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete in principle, but.... I'm inclined to agree with Occuli that this is essentially an example of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. But it is an extensive scheme at this stage, and the subcategories are not nominated. I would support a rename if it needs to be done pending a broader nomination for all of these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am definitely against deleting these two categories until the subcategories are considered as well. It was not my intent as the nominator to put these up for a deletion discussion, though certainly it's fair to have one. But if people want to have that debate, then the subcategories must be considered.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:34, 25 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.

== More United States Navy categories ==

: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 all, without prejudice to further discussion on galleys. (Non-admin closure.) – Fayenatic (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy yawls to :Category:Yawls of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy torpedo boats to :Category:Torpedo boats of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy steamships to :Category:Steamships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy sloops to :Category:Sloops of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy Q-ships to :Category:Q-ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy row galleys to :Category:Row galleys of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy rams to :Category:Rams of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy experimental nuclear submarines to :Category:Experimental nuclear submarines of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy littoral combat ships to :Category:Littoral combat ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy high speed vessels to :Category:High speed vessels of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy experimental ships to :Category:Experimental ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy galleys to :Category:Galleys of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy proposed ships to :Category:Proposed ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy canceled ships to :Category:Canceled ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy airships to :Category:Airships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy rigid airships to :Category:Rigid airships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy oceanographic research ships to :Category:Oceanographic research ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy vehicle landing ships to :Category:Vehicle landing ships of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Navy gasoline tankers to :Category:Gasoline tankers of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Fictional United States Navy submarines to :Category:Fictional submarines of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Fictional United States Navy aircraft carriers to :Category:Fictional aircraft carriers of the United States Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Fictional United States Navy ships to :Category:Fictional ships of the United States Navy

Plus also these outliers:

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Army hospital ships to :Category:Hospital ships of the United States Army

:Propose renaming :Category:United States Army transport ships to :Category:Transport ships of the United States Army

:Propose renaming :Category:Continental Navy cutters to :Category:Cutters of the Continental Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Canadian Forces hydrofoils to :Category:Hydrofoils of the Canadian Forces

:Propose renaming :Category:Canadian Forces proposed ships to :Category:Proposed ships of the Canadian Forces

:Propose renaming :Category:Canadian Forces support ships to :Category:Support ships of the Canadian Forces

:Propose renaming :Category:Canadian Forces training ships to :Category:Training ships of the Canadian Forces

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy armed merchant cruisers to :Category:Armed merchant cruisers of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy armed yachts to :Category:Armed yachts of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy auxiliary ships to :Category:Auxiliary ships of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy hydrofoils to :Category:Hydrofoils of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy icebreakers to :Category:Icebreakers of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy sloops to :Category:Sloops of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy support ships to :Category:Support ships of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy torpedo boats to :Category:Torpedo boats of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy training ships to :Category:Training ships of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Canadian Navy trawlers to :Category:Trawlers of the Royal Canadian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Former Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to :Category:Former ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary

:Propose renaming :Category:Fictional Royal Navy ships to :Category:Fictional ships of the Royal Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Australian Navy sloops to :Category:Sloops of the Royal Australian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Australian Navy survey ships to :Category:Survey ships of the Royal Australian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Australian Navy training ships to :Category:Training ships of the Royal Australian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Royal Australian Navy troop ships to :Category:Troop ships of the Royal Australian Navy

:Propose renaming :Category:Russian Northern Fleet ships to :Category:Ships of the Russian Northern Fleet

:Nominator's rationale: More USN and other navies' ships of the same type as in yesterday's nomination. There's a 10:1 ratio of "(Ship types) of the (Navy name)" to "(Navy) (ship types)" categories, and this merely completes the process of bringing the USN categories in line with the widely used scheme.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per the wildly predominant "X of Y" scheme in the :Category:Ships by navy tree, and per the recent Royal Navy CfD decision that closed with consensus to rename similiar RN cats to X of Y names. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per established convention. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per established convention. Occuli (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support renaming of Royal Australian Navy-related categories. No opinion on any of the others, although the recent 'retconning' of the Canadian Forces Maritime Command back into the Royal Canadian Navy means those categories may need a separate looking-at for this reason. -- saberwyn 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On consideration, I think "Former Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships" should be deleted outright as a bad category. The two articles in there should have the relevant RFA category added instead. -- saberwyn 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed with that. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I"ve deleted this now-empty category and struck out that one from the nominations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:commonname. For instance the US Navy ship names all start with USS. ie uses the Y X format. It is claimed that the standard format has been established but there has been no general discussion of the subject. (Many of the categories have been speedy changed to the X of Y without discussion). Also past discussions have shown that regional variations are permissable. Cjc13 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. This appears to be the dominant format on these, and I would support fully standardizing the categories for ease of use. There's no reason to go backward now on the work that's already been done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. This is the new standard. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know where to comment on this exactly, but it should be noted that :Category:United States Navy galleys are not actually galleys. Only those who write about detailed accounts of the US Navy speak of these vessels as galleys, or occasionally "row galleys". In all other contexts it would be called a gunboat or similar. Peter Isotalo 08:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, for now at least it probably should be left as "galley" as that's the term used in the sources after a quick check. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, something needs to be done to avoid confusing linking to galley, because these vessels are in most cases either gunboats, or just one of thousands of other minor, difficult-to-define vessels of war. The two neatly divided categories of US Navy "galleys" and "row galleys" seem to me to be the result of a misunderstanding due to ignorance of the general history of galleys and by treating the US Navy as isolated from maritime development elsewhere, particularly the Mediterranean and the Baltic. For example, the two contemporary pairs USS Congress (1776)/USS Washington (1776 lateen-rigged galley) and USS Savannah (1798)/USS Marietta (1803) seem to differ only in what categories they're placed in. I have a strong suspicion that there is no technical or official definition on how the two differ. If there are sources to confirm it, please produce them. And I don't simply mean the mere in-text usage of one term or the other. That can only lead to OR-ish stats of which term is used most often for this or that vessel. I mean academic naval historians actually saying "a US Navy galley is defined as X while a US Navy row galley is defined as Y". Otherwise we're talking about interchangeable synonyms specific to the US Navy c. 1775-1815. Peter Isotalo 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, the only thing I have right off-hand is DANFS, which uses the terms "galleys" and "row galleys" specificially, and exclusively, for the ships in question in its official histories. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • :Mere in-text usage of terms in references is not a useful, verifiable definition of a vessel. That line of argument will eventually lead to active interpretation of sources, which is original research or at least not NPOV. The version of DANFS on Google Books[http://books.google.com/books?id=b2uPlNlxuksC&pg=PR3&dq=Mooney+Dictionary+of+American+Naval+Fighting+Ships:+Volume+4&hl=en&ei=g07bTs-uA-Pj4QSOrazjAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=galley&f=false] seems pretty clear that the use of the term "galley" to describe gunboat-like schooners, brigantines and whatnot, should not be considered particularly precise. And on top of that, it refers to the 1776 Congress as a "galley"[http://books.google.com/books?id=cohvmh-XODEC&pg=PA732&dq=Mooney+Dictionary+of+American+Naval+Fighting+Ships:+Volume+4&hl=en&ei=g07bTs-uA-Pj4QSOrazjAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=galley&f=false], not a "row galley".
  • :Other literature than DANFS refers to vessels like the 1776 Washington as a "galley",[http://books.google.com/books?id=2ZIdNNZVDzgC&pg=PA691&dq=revolutionary+war+%2Bgalley&hl=en&ei=blDbTqWrBsfh4QTXnojQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=galley&f=false] which according to the current categories should be a "row galley". I'm sure that further variations are easy to find. An example of literature that deals with maritime tradition in a broader sense,The International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology,[http://books.google.com/books?id=A4MHdpqr8g4C&pg=PA61&dq=%22revolutionary+war%22+%2B%22row+galley%22&hl=en&ei=e1HbTrT9MMv14QSMuo37CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=%22galley%22&f=false] uses "galley" quite strictly to refer to actual galleys and sticks to "row galley" when talking about US Navy vessels. I tried to describe this in Galley#Definition_and_terminology, where I added a paragraph on the US Navy gunboat-galleys based in part on Gardiner & Lavery, The Line of Battle: Sailing Warships 1650-1840 as a source. The impression I got is that it's an authoritative source written by some fairly big names in the maritime history community. Big names that also have contributed to Morrison & Gardiner, The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times. Peter Isotalo 11:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Assuming these are all renamed, I have no objection to reopening the galleys category for discussion about whether or not they're galleys.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:26, 23 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:Films featuring the World Trade Center ==

: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. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{Lc|Films featuring the World Trade Center}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is defined as "films which incidentally feature the World Trade Center prior to its destruction". Because the WTC only appears in these films incidentally—such as being part of the NYC skyline—it is a trivial aspect of the films and should not be the subject of categorization. This is not a category for films about the WTC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Query: How many films centrally feature the WTC? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Depends on what you mean by "centrally featuring", I guess. But I personally don't know of any except those in :Category:Films based on the September 11 attacks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In that case, delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-defining. Was going to suggest listifying as I believe the topic has been discussed, but I see there is already a list created by the same user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Just as there would not usually be a category for films featuring a cameo by a certain actor, there should be none for appearances of a certain building. If anyone wants to reference this through with reliable sources then they can make a list article for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It's defining for a film such as Man on Wire, but for something like American Pie 2? No. Lugnuts (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like the editor that populated the category started at the top of the alphabet and then kind of gave up after "A". It would really be a huge category if fully developed, because some of these films have a skyline shot of pre-9/11 NYC and that's about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial. Even worse than the "about" film cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 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:Sengoku-jidai ==

: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 nom. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose renaming :Category:Sengoku-jidai to :Category:Sengoku period in fiction

:Nominator's rationale: Rename. Sengoku-jidai just redirects to Sengoku period and is just the Japanese term for that period. This category is defined as housing various media that is set in this period. I'm not very "up" on how we name these categories, whether it's "media set in FOO" or similar, but it does need to be renamed somehow to indicate that it is a media or fiction category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment This category is not being populated with only fiction; I think "media" is the term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Media, yes—but I can't identify anything in the category that is not fictional. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 24 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:Expressways in Jacksonville, Florida ====

: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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Propose merging :Category:Expressways in Jacksonville, Florida to :Category:Expressways in Duval County, Florida

:Nominator's rationale: Both categories have exactly the same contents - and with good reason, as the City of Jacksonville and Duval County consolidated in 1968, with the only exceptions being four small cities, none of which have expressways not also in Jacksonville. Suggest the Jacksonville cat be a soft redirect to the county cat. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - Per nom. Dough4872 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Nominator's rationale is sound. -- LJ ↗ 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 21:54, 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.

== Category:U.S. Highways in Miami-Dade County, Florida ==

: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) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Proposed deletion: {{Lc|U.S. Highways in Miami-Dade County, Florida}}

:Proposed deletion: {{Lc|U.S. Highways in Ouray County, Florida}}

:Nominator's rationale: WP:OC - these are the only two "U.S. Highways by county" categories that exist, and neither really provides additional information above and beyond the by-state categories. All articles already exist in the by-state categories. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 24 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.