Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 23 April 25 >

April 24

Category:Hudson Yards

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 Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the article name. Note I elected to not speedy since Hudson Yards is a redirect, so there might be some discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment according to the article, Hudson Yards is a development within the project, so is the category for the development "Hudson Yards", or for the entire project? -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2014 (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:Traditional Writing

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) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A muddled up attempt at a category. DexDor (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the one article in the cat has possible symbolic art, but calling the symbolism "traditional writing" doesn't seems to be a mainstream view. --Mark viking (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not seem to be worked out to fit with any established methods of making categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- I see no logical criterion on what should be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2014 (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:Instrumentation Engineering

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: userified to
User:Ajshetty/Instrumentation engineering, category now to be deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Uncited article in category space. May be appropriate to userfy. DexDor (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (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:Answers in Genesis staff and speakers

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; if someone creates Category:Answers in Genesis people and limits it to people who are closely affiliated to that group, that category may be nominated and then the issue can be considered anew. But there's clear consensus here that being a speaker at AiG events would not be defining for the speaker. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A random collection of people from an organisation devoted to promoting pseudoscientific nonsense who, shock horror, stand up and advocate for that organisation's pseudoscientific nonsense. I suppose we could set up a category for signatories to Project Steve. There are very many more of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know why this organization in particular had its own category. All members of the category are in the parent Category:Christian creationists, except for one, Jan Peczkis, who is not identified as a Christian, and so is in Category:Creationists. StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To begin with the clear animus in the nomination makes it suspect. Secondly, these people clearly have as a notable trait their connection to the organization. Whether these people are actually notable is another question. I would not be surprised if some would not meet our notability guidelines, but I have not looked into it at all. What is clear is that we have enough articles to justify the category, and this connection is notable to the individuals involved. Connections at this level to an organization are notable and worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no animus against the organisation at all. I do have support Wikipedia's policies mandating that pseudoscientific bullshit is not given undue weight. I presume you don't dispute that AiG is a proponent of pseudoscientific bullshit, since that is an objectively established fact. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are much better and more
WP:FRINGE than by using the inflammatory (and profane) terminology that was used. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 27 April 2014 (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:Giles Cooper Award winners

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) 00:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For people like
WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at Giles Cooper Awards#List of winners. DexDor (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (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:Commonwealth Universities

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) 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear whether this is intended to be a category for any university in a
WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. the Eastern Mediterranean University article doesn't mention the Commonwealth). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a group of universities is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Category:Coimbra_Group. For info: see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_2#Category:Universities_and_colleges_by_association. DexDor (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (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:Assyrian Empire

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 merge as duplicate of
WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: One subcat, everything else is at parent. Even the page
Assyrian Empire redirects to Assyria. trespassers william (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (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:Episode lists without episode numbers

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. I note that both template talk pages were given notice of this discussion on 24 April, but this has not drawn any defenders here. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The documentation for the templates that populate this category, Template:Episode list and Template:Episode list/sublist say that parameter EpisodeNumber is Optional, albeit desirable. Yet the implication of this cat is that the EpisodeNumber is required. Patrollers attempting to clean out this category find that it is littered with so many false positives as to make finding true unintentional EpisodeNumber omissions too difficult to be worth the trouble. For example, in List of Green Acres episodes, the TV movie needed to be numbered 171 in the series to make the categorization go away. List of Cold Feet episodes needed to have its pilot labeled as "episode zero". Template:Character list transcludes this template, so that would imply renaming the category Episode lists without episode numbers and character lists without character numbers. Fortunately only List of Highlander characters and List of The Thick of It characters use that new template, so it's not too late to nip that nonsense in the bud. Why is the generically titled {{Character list}} put in WikiProject Highlander on its talk page? Then we have Silent Witness#Novels, where {{Episode list}} lists novels rather than episodes, and the list is numbered using the Aux1 general purpose parameter, which puts the numbering in a different column. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is fulfilling a useful administrative function as a hidden category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (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:Coleorrhyncha stubs

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: upmerge to Category:Hemiptera stubs and delete template:Coleorrhyncha-stub. All are already within the other parent Category:Coleorrhyncha. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. At first glance, does not appear to have enough article to fill a stub category (60) even if all species included. Dawynn (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2014 (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:Fictional deities

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: keep. Feel free to prune or split as suggested. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Fictional deities to Category:Fictional deities and demigods
  • Nominator's rationale: Some technically aren't "gods" or even "deities" and most are considered "divine" in some way. For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (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:Invasions

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: !Delete. Like a 2006 comment on Talk, I don't see the point. Technical aspects of operations are better covered on Category:Military operations by type. Sister cats on Category:Wars by type are mostly about conditions of motives or legal status, and many of the current cat members seem to be mildly POV pushing. trespassers william (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • q what do you propose to do with the contents? im not sure I see the POV pushing. an invasion is an invasion, and we have lots of articles and categories titled "Invasion of X", etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I checked have enaogh legit parents as they are, so I don't propose anything should be done with them. trespassers william (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An invasion is an invasion, there is nothing "POV-pushing" about it. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep no valid reason for deletion. This is not a 'type of military operation'; it is a type of war and is so categorized. Hmains (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article Invasion, they can be either wars, operations or both (offense and counter-offense disscussion at one breath). The Invasion of Normandy et al. are not wars. Note that presently, even Wars by type is under Military Operations, because this parent does concern itself with magnitude.
Right now it is extremely underpopulated, focused on a few countries, which made me think of a history POVs. I beleive that if this category is fully populated, it will resemble Category:Wars, maybe in combination with something in Category:Military operations. trespassers william (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on procedural grounds as there are subcats such as Category:World War II invasions that sit under this category (i.e. those subcats would need to be deleted first or at the same time). This category needs some clear inclusion criteria (possibly based on the lead of the Invasion article). E.g. the category currently contains the Vietnamese border raids in Thailand article, but not many other articles about cross-border SF ops etc. DexDor (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they need to be deleted? trespassers william (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have Category:Invasions in fiction‎, Category:Cancelled invasions‎ etc then it makes sense to group them all under Category:Invasions. Most "X in Y" categories have a parent category for both X and Y. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:DexDor, sorry for the pause, has the ball gotten to my court? If it isn't solid enough for proper topics, it shouldn't be kept just for ephemera to haunt. Invasions in fiction would go under Category:Wars in fiction or Category:Military fiction. Cancelled invasions, is already under Category:Cancelled military operations. Are you sure there is any good in attaching them to the other branch? Who would miss them there? trespassers william (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a good reason to delete Category:Invasions then surely that same reason also applies to Category:Invasions of the United Kingdom‎, Category:Invasions by the United States‎ etc - either CFD them all together or start by CFDing the lower categories. Deleting just the top "invasion" category would make it harder to navigate between the remaining "invasion" categories. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who invaded who is at times open to dispute. I think "invasion" is a more POV statement than some thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but define and prune, and add a statement that it should hold only pages/categories (i) with "invasion" in the name or (ii) where there has been a consensus on the talk page to include them in this category. – Fayenatic London 12:32, 26 April 2014 (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:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are like the recent decision for Ilaiyaraaja; again, the contents are primarily films for which these composers wrote the score. They should be moved to the new names. This nomination is without prejudice to re-creating the categories if there are sufficient other types of notable composition by each composer. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the main proposal -- good clarification. (Note: I don't think it's necessary or desirable to rename Category:Film scores by composer as suggested in the middle of the discussion. The existing name is clear enough.) --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category:Music composed by ABC (will have 2 categories)
1.1. Category:Songs composed by ABC (will have articles about songs)
1.2. Category:Films with music composed by ABC (will have 2 categories)
1.2.1. Category:Films with songs composed by ABC (will have articles about films)
1.2.2. Category:Films with background scores composed by ABC (will have articles about films)
Over categorization is it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:23, 1 May 2014 (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:New-Nollywood 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: merge (which, practically speaking, means a straight delete since all articles are already in the target category or an appropriate subcategory). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
Original research category. Nothing even mentioned on the Nollywood article to suggest this is true. Merge into main country category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: the Nollywood article isn't up to date. the category is a very notable topic, readers may want to view films that belong to that category. you can check these links to prove that it is a worthy category.
It is not an Original research.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then again, the term doesn't always refer to Nigerian films. So it can't be merged into the category.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is definitely a notable category and would form a very essential arrangement. My only problem with it is the Wikipedian definition for it. There are some films that meets his defination that are not New-Nollywood films! Here are a few more links to showcase its notability 1, 2, 3.
talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment:I didn't see any part of
WP:CAT that states that some categories shouldn't be created, or infact anything related to what y'all are trying to say. Where did you guys invent your "standard" from?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:EDITCONSENSUS. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted from CFD 2014 April 2
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (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:Actors of European descent

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: no consensus, except on the fact that if it is to exist, it should generally only be a container category and should not be applied directly to articles. There was general agreement on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need this category - actors of european descent do not have a sufficient relation with the topic to merit this category in terms of being spoken of specially. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many people all over world who are of European descent and they are known to have different occupations. For example, actors and actresses. I understand that this category is new but it's an interesting topic and needs to be expanded. Are you saying that categorizing pages in Category:People of European descent by their various occupations is not important? See also: Category:American actors of Chinese descent. Have you nominated that too? Stanleytux (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole (x people of y descent) is problematic but don't have the energy to address it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just shoot it and put it out of its misery! I pretty much agree with you. The entire descent tree is full of subjectivity. No one has been able to provide objective inclusion criteria. If you nominate one category someone will complain that you are cherry picking one category. If you try a mass nomination, the someone will complain that the nomination covers too much and the few exceptions can not be adequately discussed. My question is how many generations removed before you no longer qualify or what percentage of your blood is needed to qualify. If we don't have answers to those questions, then we must delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have more responses to the suggestion that this be retained as a {{container category}} (and tagged as such), and for editors who support deletion/merger to clarify why they support removing this category while we retain the parallel Category:Actors of Asian descent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 24 April 2014 (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:Soundtracks by Indian artists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is in the hierarchy Category:Soundtracks by artist nationality which is intended to collate sub-categories by artist (performer). However, all the sub-categories are by composer, not performer; they are already also categorised in Category:soundtracks by composer. (In some cases, the composers also performed a minority of the songs, but the albums are predominantly performed by "various artists" rather than the composers.) Filmi is music of Indian cinema, and I think this would make a better name. The move should be without prejudice to re-creation if categories of soundtrack albums by performer in India turn up later. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This name change would force it out of the artist by nationality structure. A film composer for Indian cinema is not necessarily Indian (e.g.
    Khawaja Khurshid Anwar). SFB 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Sillyfolkboy: none of the current contents are sub-categories by artist, hence it is entirely intentional that these should be taken out of the artist by nationality hierarchy. As stated, the proposal is without prejudice to re-creating the category if there are (now or in the future) any categories of soundtracks by artist, where the artist is Indian. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given category reorganisation. SFB 17:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filmi is a term commonly used for Bollywood (Hindi) music, but only rarely for many of the regional variants -- Tamil/Telugu/Bengali/Kannada/Malayalam soundtracks and there are a lot of those in this category. Our article isn't exactly well sourced on that count (the references predominantly use soundtrack or playback). —SpacemanSpiff 17:44, 16 June 2014 (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:Hydrogen rocket 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:

– Fayenatic London 14:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: These are rocket engines that use the named propellent for fuel. They aren't rockets for it, or rockets used by it - "Foo-fuelled" should be the standard for this sort of thing. The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—on all three proposals. The new names would be more clear, as bipropellant rocket engines—of which H2,
    methane engines all are—all have an oxidizer as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • support for these.
What's to happen with cats such as Category:Hydrogen peroxide (cold cycle) rocket engines and Category:Hydrogen peroxide (hot cycle) rocket engines, or other monopropellants? Are we going to create oxidiser categories in similar fashion?
While I've got your attention, can we also please avoid some recent rocket motor renames, such as
Waxwing (rocket engine). There is a strong convention that solid fuels are motors, not engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I realised afterwards that that last one was a mis-step for exactly that reason, thanks for fixing it because I did. I believe a Category:Hydrogen peroxide-fueled rocket engines would be appropriate, but not by-cycle. Not sure about oxidisers. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2014 April 8
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that there may be an alternative here avoiding the "fueled"/"fuelled" ENGVAR debate, although it will make the category titles longer. What do people think of the following titles?

This would also allow for "Monopropllant rocket engines" to become "Rocket engines using monopropellant", matching the others, whereas the original proposal would leave it the 'odd cat out'. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Propellant" has a majorly different meaning from "fuel", given that we're usually talking about bipropellant engines and so need to distinguish these two. It would be a really bad idea for a trivial issue of grammar or language to escalate itself up into making such a semantic difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "fueled" is better, myself (the fact that "monopropellant" can be fit into the second scheme but not the first notwithstanding), but I figured it was a good idea to at least throw it at the wall and see if it stuck. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all three changes if either the original proposal Category:xxx rocket engines to Category:xxx-fueled rocket engines or to Category:Rocket engines using xxx propellant. Oppose the use of "fuelled", in any form. And I should clarify, am not saying "fuelled" is incorrect, as I am aware (but only in the past year) of the ENGVAR issue on that word. Best solution is probably to use an approach, if there is consensus that such an approach exists, that avoids both "fueled" and "fuelled" in order to just avoid that issue, and showing up as wrong in a large number of spell-checkers. N2e (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the point raised by Andy, and am aware of the distinction between fuel and oxidizer in bipropellant engines. It is fairly rare that any of hydrogen, methane, or kerosene are used as cold-gas thruster (monopropellant) engines. However, it is possible to do so, has been tested, and is even proposed for some corner-case uses; see for example
ACES which proposes to use hydrogen boil-off on long term storage of a combination upper-stage/in-space-propellant-storage-facility directly as propellant, and not as a fuel to be combined with an oxidizer, for long-term attitude control and small orbital adjustments. In other words, I believe that Category:Rocket engines using xxx propellant
would have a scope that is a bit wider, and would include BOTH hydrogen-fueled bipropellant rocket engines AND hydrogen-propellant cold gas thrusters such as proposed for ACES.
(I'll also say that I can't wait until widespread global English practice eliminates more and more of the double-consonants in the various varieties of spelled English. But I realize that time is not here at this time.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several "hot" monopropellant hydrogen engines, depending on your definition of rocket, it would fit (thermal instead of combustion engines (ie. NERVA), plasma, etc) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cold cycle hydrogen peroxide is an important monopropellant, and also an important oxidiser in hot cycle engines. Categorization should distinguish these. There's little point in any categorization beyond "burny hot stuff" unless we can achieve useful and subject-relevant categorization like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why hydrogen peroxide =/= hydrogen (the latter's
common useage in rocketry meaning LH2). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 28 April 2014 (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:Piano rock songs

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) 04:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted once before see CfD here. I can see a reason for keep, and I can see good reasons to delete, Is any song with a piano on it to be categorized? and most importantly, song articles are just that, about songs, not about specific recordings of songs. So is arrangement of a song defining? Twinkle says I have to decide to delete to nominate, but I am happier with a consensus - either way. Richhoncho (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question is piano rock recognized as a genre separate from other rock genres? It seems most of these could be just rock or rock ballads. Genre categorization is always a bit tricky. I have no strong opinions yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I would say no, a look at Category:Rock songs by genre makes me think a pruning of these categories is necessary. Reggae rock songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2014 April 8
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (conditionally). The parent article exists, seems moderately well-defined, or definable, and the categorized articles seem reasonably categorised here. Keep, subject to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piano_rock_(2nd_nomination) resulting in a keep, which is seems to be headed to. Finely dividied categories does not equate to overcategorization. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, changing my opinion to delete now that the primary topic article has been deleted. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small, undefined genre categories make navigation harder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (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:Czechoslovak people of World War II

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: From 1918 to 1991, the country was Czechoslovakia. The Czech Republic and Slovakia did not exist as separate countries. The demonym of Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovak.
talk) 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The parent category structure is not real proof of anything. These categories might have been falsely created based on modern geographical locations of the people's places of birth/residence. I'm no expert on Czechoslovakia, but I'm not sure that Czechia and Slovakia were even separate states during the time of Czechoslovakia, which would mean that they were not separate nationalities at that time. Perhaps someone with more knowledge in the field knows.

talk) 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Again, these are about nationalities, not countries, so they have nothing to do with what you are stating. Hmains (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there was a puppet state of Slovakia during WWII. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Keep the contextual timeline. For WWII, Czechoslovak is the appropriate demonym. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Czechoslovak is the right term. For what we are defining here, Czech and Slovak do not work. The nationality was Czechoslovak. This really reflects the presentist bias in creating categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just have both (oppose). Have the Czech and Slovak categories be subcategories of the Czechoslovak ones. Since Czechoslovakia was pretty much dismembered during the war, with a puppet Slovak state existing for some of the time, I think it's probably OK to use both forms of categorization. The nationality that existed pre-war was Czechoslovak, but people still identified as being of Czech or Slovak nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2014 April 13
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 24 April 2014 (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:London Symphony Orchestra film scores

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 Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are not films, but soundtrack albums. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 24 April 2014 (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.

Soundtracks by composer

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are soundtracks categorised by composer, not albums by artist (performer). The parent
speedy nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 24 April 2014 (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:Geography of Queens County, New York

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The other boroughs of New York City all use the borough name, not the county name. While the "New York" part is the way the categories related to Queens are named (due to ambiguity with Queen), the "County" is not. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them - Category:Geography of Staten Island, although its subcategories are split. Kennethaw88 • talk 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done fixed. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (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:World War II desert airfields

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: split to relevant geographical sub-cat of Category:World War II airfields. It may be that they are all already so categorised. As for the split suggested by user:The Bushranger, some member pages are in the US; and I do not see an obvious benefit in a new North Africa category as this would cut across some sub-cats of Category:World War II airfields in Africa. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being in a desert is not especially
WP:DEFINING for an airfield, and there is no "Desert airfields" or "Airfields by biome" category tree. The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 24 April 2014 (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:Lehigh Valley Hospitals

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 C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the format of other subcategories in Category:Hospitals in Pennsylvania. The hospitals are located in a place and it does not own the hospitals. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_24&oldid=1138398955"