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: rename, disambiguate per actual content and per header of the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Suggestion:
Category:Jesus in art would be shorter and correspond to various others. I remember
user:Johnbod favoured that naming format for depictions of another religious figure last year. –
FayenaticLondon 17:50, 8 January 2016 (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:Categories by geographical location
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: rename, the adjective "geographical" seems redundant, most subcategories are simply "by location" or "by locality". The related article is
Location (geography).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment geographic location versus building/structure versus natural geography versus geopolitical location. It would seem better to rename the subcategories to exclude buildings and structures instead. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk) 09:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Also, the structure can easily cope with different interpretations of "location", so further specifying "geographical locations" really isn't necessary. --
PanchoS (
talk) 09:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Support This is unneeded disambiguation in a category name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:11, 13 February 2016 (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:Articles containing Simplified Chinese-language text
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 empty category. The discussion has now been open for such a long time, and the category has been empty for quite some time, so I hope nobody will mind that I close the discussion even while I participated in it.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Upper/Lower case in word "Simplified".
ValterVB (
talk) 13:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Are you sure that "Simplified Chinese" is not correct? It looks like a compound proper noun to me, but I am no expert.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I have fixed the template which created the category with upper case. Now the category is empty. --
ValterVB (
talk) 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge per
Peterkingiron. Simplified Chinese is a proper compound. Lowercase "simplified" tends to be misleading, too: especially with the "-language" suffix, it reads like we'd be simplifying something, i.e. the compound is no more understood as being a compound. --
PanchoS (
talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
@
PanchoS: What do you think of the alternative rename proposal?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
I still think it's a proper compound, so needs capitalization, but "characters" is much, much better. In the end, there is no "Simplified Chinese" language, just a "Simplified Chinese" script. --
PanchoS (
talk) 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge one way or the other. I am not sure which way, but these are the same thing, so only one category is needed.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge and rename both categories to
Category:Articles containing Simplified Chinese characters. I agree with Johnpacklambert that they are the same, so there should only be one category. Since the Wikipedia article exists at
Simplified Chinese characters, I recommend following the capitalization at that article. If that article is renamed to have lowercase characters, then this category can be renamed correspondingly to have lowercase characters.
Cunard (
talk) 06:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I thought about closing this discussion (with a rename to the "characters" proposal but keeping "Simple" capitalized due to lack of consensus), but upon investigation, I don't know if it's even possible to rename the category to use "characters" instead of "-language text", given that it is applied by a template. (Well, of course it's possible—virtually anything is possible with templates if you know what you are doing, I just think it would be far too complex for me to figure out and implement.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Good Olfactory: Do you happen to know someone who is capable of implementing what you suggested?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)reply
No, I don't, but I'm not too familiar with the editors who are coding experts at all. One possibility is I could close it and then just put it in
WP:CFDWM and hope that someone who looks at stuff there has a talent for coding that I don't know about. It might be more likely to be seen there than sitting here unclosed?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Personally I think neither will be effective. I've asked for help
here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That's probably the surest bet. See what some of them think.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for solving the issue. @
Good Olfactory: Category is now empty and can be deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:56, 19 March 2016 (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:Aircraft with four ejection seats
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – Sorry my late answer. Many laymen don't realize that aircraft can have more than two ejection seats. The choreography to avoid seat collisions takes precious time. My intention with this category is to let readers find other aircraft with several ejection seats. I couldn't come up with a proper name for "Category:Aircraft with more than two or three ejection seats", but aircraft with more than four ejection seats would also be interesting. I do realize that this category could lead to trivial categories like
Category:Aircraft with one ejection seat, and
Category:Aircraft with two ejection seats which I don’t find useful. But
Category:Carrier-based aircraft isn't followed by
Category:Land-based aircraft just as
Category:People who have walked on the Moon isn't followed by
Category:People who haven't walked on the Moon. The reason is the same, the red categories are too trivial. But in my opinion, aircraft with four or more ejection seats are non-trivial enough to have a category. --Regards,
Necessary Evil (
talk) 15:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)reply
'Carrier-based aircraft' is
WP:DEFINING to the aircraft type; however, the intersection of "X number of seats" and "X type of seats" is only interesting trivia and, therefore,
overcategorisation. Now, adding a bit to
Ejection seat noting how multiple seat firings require timing and such may be useful, however. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Some users are hiding behind
WP:TRIVIALCAT, as if it has written: "Thou shalt not have Category:Aircraft with four ejection seats!". However TRIVIALCAT is not as rock-solid in this matter - it is more an assessment.
Reply You're right,
WP:TRIVIALCAT is a judgment call this seems to be "modern military jets with room for four people so there's also four ejection seats" and the
Ejection seat article doesn't lead me to a different view. I would have no objection to a list article though.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@RevelationDirect: Well it's not all military jets with room for X people that have X ejection seats on board because of weight and structural issues - e.g.
Vickers Valiant,
Handley Page Victor and
Avro Vulcan; only the pilots had ejection seats while the other three crew members had to bail out via the entrance door. But your list article suggestion sounds interesting. How about
List of multi-crew aircraft with ejection seats? I'm not interested in one or two-seater aircraft, they're too trivial regarding launch sequence. And I'm not interested in multi-crew military aircraft, like
C-130 Hercules without ejection seats. --Regards,
Necessary Evil (
talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (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.
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:deleteSQLQuery me!
Nominator's rationale: We do not have an article about this particular prize. It is probably a notable prize, but I think the first step would be to create an article about the prize, possibly including a list of recipients, before attempting to categorize bio articles by it.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete -- We do not normally allow award categories except for the most notable. Lists doe the job much better. The contents can be in date order with information on the citation. As a national award, this may be approaching the level at which we would allow it, but we should have the list first.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This does not appear to be a top national/industry/field award. No objection to listifying.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete per Peterkingiron so that the information grouping the laureates together is not lost.
Cunard (
talk) 06:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Regarding listifying: I don't normally object to listifying, but in this case, the award is not even mentioned in the article text for the vast majority of those included in this category, and it is cited information in exactly one of the 48 articles. Hence, it is virutally all uncited information. Do we really want to create a list of recipients where there are no citations? Do we really need to retain an uncited grouping? I say get an article for the award first—then, a list can be included in the article that is properly cited, if users are so inclined to do the work for that.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, that is a good point. I've created a list of people in the category below so the information is not lost as it might be helpful to a future editor who wants to create a sourced list of recipients. But since the material is currently uncited, I agree that it should not be listified.
Cunard (
talk) 23:53, 27 February 2016 (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:Alim Qasimov
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be enough content to warrant an eponymous category per
WP:OCEPON. A couple of albums and the person's daughter and that's it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. No objection to recreating an eponymous category or a Qasimov family category later if either can get up to 5 or so articles.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (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.