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.
Manually delete for now after checking that all pages are correctly categorised under
Category:Television directors and
Category:Film directorsCategory:Film directors. 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. 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. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)reply
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#OVERLAPPING. 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)reply
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)reply
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)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.
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.
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.
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 BushrangerOne ping only11:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge all for simplicity ... and congrats to the nominator for a lucid and well-reasoned rationale. 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. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:16, 21 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: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.
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 page10:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)reply
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 page15:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
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 page05:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)reply
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. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
09:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
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. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
09:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
No, it is not at all confusing ... but it is completely misleading. 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. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
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 page11:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)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: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.
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)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: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.
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)reply
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)reply
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 [
[1]] and [
[2]]. 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, [
[3]]. On which front should this be debated?
Daniel the Monk (
talk)
02:00, 25 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.