Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 27

< December 26	December 28 >

December 27

Category:Diesel aircraft piston engines

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/merge (well actually delete as there's nothing left in it). Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diesel aircraft piston engines to Category:Aircraft diesel engines

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Revert recent undiscussed rename to a convoluted WP:NEO. This matches the name of both the category's lead article and the related category at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the recently created Category:Rotary aircraft piston engines (was Category:Rotary engines). Another one where Whitman/Emerson would seem to apply. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This wasn't actually a rename. Category:Diesel aircraft piston engines was created and all articles were moved into it. They've all been moved back to Category:Aircraft diesel engines now so the category can just be deleted. I agree with the nominator, this cat name is convoluted. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2011 (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:Education in Taiwan and Category:Military academies of Taiwan

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, noting the current arrangements are, contrary to some of the comments in this discussion, that the country is at "Republic of China" and the island is at "Taiwan". Those objecting to that arrangement need to take the matter up at a broader location; there also needs to be a general clean up on the RoC/Taiwan categories to bring consistency across the board. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Consequential request per WP:CFD/Log/2011 December 19 [1]. 61.18.170.141 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be speedied? 116.48.183.135 (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely, C2B. 61.18.170.247 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP has decided to use "Taiwan" for the country, as being the name by which it is commonly known by the rest of the world: Republic of China and is too similar to People's Republic of China and causes confusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:NC-TW which says "Taiwan" is the island, not the country. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Taiwan is an island, not the country. There are places in the Republic of China not in Taiwan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Peterkingiron is mistaken; right now Republic of China refers to the country and Taiwan refers only to the island. This is the naming convention we have per WP:NC-TW. No discussion is necessary; speedy it. Jim Sukwutput 03:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Where are the esducational and military institutes etc; all are on Taiwan? Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the schools and colleges are not in Taiwan. And these categories are usually named according to countries and administrative subunits. Further, Taiwan is not a country to own any military academies. 61.18.170.37 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such categories are created according to administrative units instead of geographical features. E.g. Category:Something of Hawaii covers the US state of Hawaii instead of the Hawaiian Islands. ROC's province of Taiwan covers only three quarters of the island of Taiwan and its islets, and forty percent of the population on the island. The island and its islets in turn covers 98% of the ROC. 61.18.170.250 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The consensus of NC-TW is that in most cases "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are interchangeable. This consensus came about because move requests to and from are disruptive and unnecessarily partisan. Further, per discussions on the Taiwan and ROC articles, there is likely to be some flux in the definitions in use. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Quite the opposite, resistence to moves is disruptive and established rules. In the cases nominated here, the two terms aren't interchangeable. 61.18.170.37 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly - "some POV-warriors are going to resist moves that should be speedied per policy" is not an excuse for opposing such a move. It just makes you a POV-warrior, which is not so far from the truth based on your pattern of edits. Your statement here is extremely hypocritical. Jim Sukwutput 22:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SchmuckyTheCat. Taiwan can refer to the country as well as the island. This is a premature and in some respects a POV request given discussions on the ROC talk page. John Smith's (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More useless oppose votes from POV warriors. We use NC-TW naming convention until you officially change it. I don't care how many proposals you start up at ROC, until the content of NC-TW is changed, we use it. There is no ambiguity in following that policy. A previous rename (linked above) has already passed; in essence, this proposal is a exact duplicate of that one, and hence should be speedied. If you have a problem with NC-TW, bring it up at the talk page, rather than suddenly jumping into routine move discussions through stalking my user contributions page and putting up incoherent opposes. Jim Sukwutput 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. This is both consequential to the previous request and compliance to the conventions. 218.250.159.42 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move per nomination. Speedy it. 116.48.172.160 (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (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:Ringer (TV series)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category. Only 3 articles, all of which contain links to each other making this category unnecessary AussieLegend (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note a previous related discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...at which I questioned the need for this category.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary based on the small number of articles. 70.226.165.169 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am not clear why we need a list of episodes article or a long article on a (presumably unbroadcast) pilot episode. Either the category should be converted to a navbox template, or sufficient links should be provided in the main article for a category to be unnecessary. Better still merge the lot. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an episode list because that's conventional with TV series. The pilot aired on September 13, 2011 and, so far, 10 episodes of a 22 episode first season order have aired. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no reason to have categories for every TV series ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (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:Old English-language films

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category created by user who is using imdb as a source. No valid references for any articles to indicate they are in 'old english', nor any definition of what the category means by old english. GimliDotNet (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iff part of the film Beowulf was in Old English. 61.18.170.141 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The category states 'Old English-language films' not films with a little bit of old-english thrown in. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this ends up being kept for some reason, the hyphen looks wrong. It currently says old films in the english-language, not films in the old-english language. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Having not seen the film, I do not know whether or to what extent it is acted in Old English. It is clearly a dramatisation of an Old English poem, but I find it hard to beleive that it would be a popular film if in what is essentially a foreing language to modern English speakers. If kept it should become Category:Films in the Old English language or Category:Old-English language films. Anyway do we need a category for films using Old English? It is not a category that we are likely to populate to any great extent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete X language films is for films in that language, not films with a few words of that language. We would not put Saints and Soldiers in Category:German-language films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2011 (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:Donald Duck universe characters

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. The eventual name of the category can be settled in a further discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Donald Duck universe characters to Category:Mickey Mouse universe characters

Nominator's rationale: They are the same universe. Having both categories is unnecessary. JDDJS (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Disney core universe characters. Even the article Mickey Mouse universe says, "'Mickey Mouse universe' is not an official term used by Disney," while Duck universe says, "'Duck universe' is a term used by fans and is not an official part of the Disney lexicon."--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not recall the mouse frequeently appearing in Duck films or vice versa. Both are properly subcategories of Category:Disney animated characters, which may be what Mike Selinker had in mind. WP has usually sought to merge articles on fictional characters back into the film or TV series in which they appeared, leading to a category full of redirects, all going to the same article. However, that has not been done here. Both categories are sufficiently populated to keep, at least until some one undertakes a merger of the articles on the characters, which I hope they do not: it would be much too big an article. If there is some slight overlap between the universes, so be it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean Category:Disney animated characters; that includes characters from things like The Nightmare Before Christmas and Phineas and Ferb. I mean specifically the core universe where Donald and Mickey and Daisy and Pluto and Goofy live. That there are different cities in this universe does not make those cities different universes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The appropirateness of any name can be discussed elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse have appeared jointly in over 40 cartoons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are characters who appear only in one universe or the other. 61.18.170.104 (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom then can rename target in another discussion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (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.

Accessory and compound fruits

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: reconstitute and relist at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7#Category:Compound_fruit.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There has long been a circumscription problem with Category:Fruit, which recently was brought up at WT:PLANTS. However, this is not the remit of the project, and the issue with the twin use of the category for fruit as edible things and fruit as botanical objects lead to the split of the latter into the new category:fruit morphology. These two categories were odd hybrids of the two concepts, and inappropriate too (from a culinary point of view, which is now the relevant one for Category:Fruit, the botanical nature of the fruit is irrelevant, especially since many vegetable are botanical fruits). Their contents have thus been removed to either Category:Fruit or category:fruit morphology, and they are no longer needed at all. this does not affect the issue of what specific species should be in Category:Fruit. Circéus (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstitute for discussion -- CFD rules require categories not to be emptied before discussion. The noms reference appears to be to WT:PLANTS#Tree and fruit categories, where there has indeed been a discussion. With two now-empty categories, we can presumably expect automatic deletion in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad for not being aware of new procedures. I haven't really done much here in years. Circéus (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2011 (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.