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:American inspired aircrafts
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.
Once renamed ( if not deleted: I happen to agree with Milborne One) then they can be re-populated without any hassle. The category names were so obviously incorrect, it was not possible to leave them populated.--
Petebutt (
talk)
18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:CFD: "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion." @
Petebutt: Please repopulate asap.
Oculi (
talk)
09:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - even if you ignore the current spelling, the categories are useless - they are a ragbag mixture of licenced built aircraft and aircraft that have been indigenously designed but by some vague process of Original Research are stated to be inspired by American, Russian or French aircraft, with the lingering suggestion that the Chinese (and these mainly are Chinese aircraft) cannot design aircraft on their own. There may be a place for a category for license-built aircraft, but as set up the categories are unhelpful in the extreme.
Nigel Ish (
talk)
20:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nigel Ish is now emptying the repopulated categories. This is becoming tiresome. (The ones I have looked at all have some cited reference to being 'based on' or similar.)
Oculi (
talk)
21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I only removed categories from two articles - one of which (
Shenyang J-15) was blatantly false - the J-15 is evidently not "American influenced" - and both were before I was aware from this discussion- please withdraw allegations that I am blanking the categories.
Nigel Ish (
talk)
17:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Hi Nigel Ish, all the aircraft that I have added have been reviewed one by one meticulously with information from Wikipedia. My original idea was to include more aircraft from all countries, including those created entirely by China and imitated in other countries because of his design. This was interrupted when user Petebutt noticed that I had written the categories wrong. For military history and enthusiasts it is important because it explains the mythical aircraft on which the industry has been based to develop its models around the world. Not judging who makes more or better aircraft.--
NronQsr (
talk)
05:20, 6 August 2019 (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:Australian first-class cricketers of South African origin
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.
Comment what we deleted was a NZ category. "First class" is redundant, because any others will be NN anyway. The category is in practice about South African expratriate cricketers in Autralia. At worst it should be upmerged, rather than deleted, but I suspect there may be scope for populating it better and getting it up to the normal minimum of 5.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment it is conceivable that a played would play either T20I or ODI matches without playing first-class cricket, but that would be more likely for minor cricketing nations. It does seem like an unnecessary addition to the category name, however.
Grutness...wha?05:04, 6 August 2019 (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:Clippers
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.
Specifically oppose the suggested solutionCategory:Clippers ships or
Category:Clipper ships - both of these imply to some that a clipper
barque, clipper
brig, or clipper
schooner, etc, are excluded from being a clipper - the point being that the ambiguous word "ship" can denote a
fully rigged ship. This whole mess appears to arise from a historical difference between American clippers, which were designed to sail round Cape Horn and were virtually all fully rigged ships, versus the opium clippers, some tea clippers and others which were not. Therefore American focused sources can talk about "clipper ships" without any gross lack of correctness, whilst those directed at the Australian emigrant trade, the tea and opium trades and (though Wikipedia does not seem to have noticed this) transatlantic trade cannot. In short, this usage of "clipper" means a commercial sailing vessel designed to sail quickly and probably built between the mid 1830s and the end of the 1870s - it can be of any type of rig, whilst "ship" is ambiguous as possibly implying one rig. I have no problem with fixing the overall problem stated, but not with the suggested solution. I would offer
Category:Clipper (ship type) as a possible alternative.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk)
14:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Absolutely no need for a rename. Clippers are ships and this is the primary meaning of the word alone. Any other type of clippers will have another word added. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support as nom. A clipper is also an occupation in the hand-made shoe trade and no doubt his tool. A clipper is also a type of sailing ship. We should stock to the standard WP format of putting a disambiguator in brackets.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No need; one looking for another usage will be referred there; those looking for the nautical usage (which itself is the parent of some others) will already be where they wanted to be.
Kablammo (
talk)
17:20, 4 August 2019 (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:Alkenones
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: Besides
Alkenones, all of the pages in
Category:Alkenones belong in
Category:Enones but not
Category:Alkenones. The six other pages each describe a chemical that has an oxygen-carbon double bond that's conjugated to a carbon-carbon double bond and is therefore an enone. Meanwhile, per the lead of
Alkenone, the term alkenone only applies to a ketone that: has a methyl or ethyl group on one side and a linear hydrocarbon group on the other, which rules out all other members except
Methyl vinyl ketone and
3-Penten-2-one; is formed by a member of the class Prymnesiophyceae, which I don't think applies to the other pages since
Alkenone is the only page in the category that mentions phytoplankton; and has between 35 and 41 carbon atoms, which rules out all members of the category except
Alkenone in and of itself.
Care to differ or discuss with me?The Nth User02:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Contra: The content of
Alkenones is very special. Alkenones are a complete subgroup of enones. They contain a keto group, a C=C-doublebond and rest is completely alkylic. There is no need that they ar conjugated. An enone contains only a keto group and a C=C-doublebond. And just think of Alk-en-one = Alkyl, a doublebond and the keto group. There is a need to rewrite the article alkenone. And
de:Alkenone tells you, what an alkenone really is. By the way – The_Nth_User – have you studied chemistry, specially organic chemistry? PhD? Regards
JWBE (
talk)
17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, according to the articles in this category this is about
ketones, or more specifically α,β-unsaturated ketones. It seems that alkenone is not a defining characteristic.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:50, 29 July 2019 (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:Politicians by religion
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.
Keep most or rename. A politician's religion (particularly in India) is far from trivial. It will determine how they operate in politics in support of their community (religion). However, we can lose the 20th/21st century split my merging; also Indian Jain since I doubt there will be enough non-Indian Jains to merit a category. The Christian category should be
Category:Indian Christian politicians, which is correct for both articles. Christians are currently a persecuted minority in much of India, so that Chritian politicians will be particularly important to them. I only sampled
Category:Muslim politicians, but those I looked at also seemed to be
Category:Indian Muslim politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron I understand the logic of having categories for politicians whose heritage or beliefs are a defining factor, but unfortunately I must disagree in this instance and here is why: first for
Category:Muslim politicians most politicians in this category seemed to be placed here because they either have an Islamic-sounding name, or are from Muslim-majority regions such as Pakistan or Kashmir. Therefore their Islamic faith is not a defining aspect in their political career, unless they are a part of an Islamic political party, which as mentioned before there is already a category for. Similarly for most of the articles for Christian politicians don't have any mention of the subjects faith and are placed there rather for their Christian-sounding names. Also there are several regions of India such as
Mizoram and
Nagaland where Christians form the vast majority and thus being a Christian would not be a defining characteristic at all. Similarly almost all the articles in
Category:Hindu politicians belong to either the
BJP or
Shiv Sena, both of which are Hindu nationalists political parties so one would assume that the politicians belong to these parties are Hindu. The only category of which I am having second thoughts about is
Category:Sikh politicians as like Jews, Sikhs are more of an ethno-religious group rather than other religions which are more trans-cultural and trans-national.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, we specifically have
Category:Politicians of Christian political parties etc. to avoid trivial intersections. The nominated categories are apparently applied to India, but the principle remains the same there. For example if there is no Jain political party, it does not make sense to categorize someone as a Jain politician.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Clearly in some places religion is very defining of politicians, but in many it isnt. I would only have the national subcategories.
Rathfelder (
talk)
14:32, 30 July 2019 (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:Institutes of the Roman Curia
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—Pastor Bonus, which currently governs the Roman Curia, in
articles 1 & 2, distinguishes between "dicasteries" and "institutes". The "offices" of the Roman Curia are a type of dicastery, like a congregation, pontifical council, or tribunal, but the "institutes" are not "dicasteries". The categories would be legally inaccurate if they were to merge "offices" with "institutes". Canon Law Junkie§§§ Talk20:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge per the nom. Upon evaluation, as far as I can tell, these two categories have the same general scope. I am no expert on the Roman Catholic Church, but these categories appear the same.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
00:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment There seems to be a consensus in favor of a merger, but the preferred name is uncertain, I believe a close to either name would be in order with a further nomination to move it if necessary. I've therefore filed an
WP:ANRFC since keeping it open for longer won't do any good. --
Trialpears (
talk)
11:27, 18 October 2019 (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:Cow and Chicken
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: Only five articles fall in this category. Of them, one is the main series article, one is the episode list, one is the creator, and the other two are about a related spin-off. This category does not need to exist. The editor who created this category has a questionable edit history.
Paper LuigiT •
C00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
My mistake, I forgot that it was a segment on Cow & Chicken. As for the creator's article, that shouldn't be in the category, since people aren't usually categorized under their works.
Trivialist (
talk)
22:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know I can't vote on this, but I completely disagree that I Am Weasel can get into a category about its sister series, it has been separated from that show since 1999. In my opinion, this category is useless for having too few articles which would fall under it and should be deleted. It would be the same as to create a separate category for I Am Weasel, would be just another useless one.
170.244.28.169 (
talk)
05:20, 10 August 2019 (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.