Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 11

February 11

Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance

• Propose deleting Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is entirely redundant to Category:Redirect-Class United States articles as all redirects are automatically of NA importance. I do quite a lot of categorising redirects, and this is the only project I am aware of that has a category like this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Redirects are not automatically of NA importance, unless the banner has |importance= left blank, or absent. If the banner has e.g. |importance=low, it'll be placed in Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of Low-importance.

Before deleting, you'll need to edit {{WikiProject United States}}, so that the {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} used in that banner has the parameter |SUPPRESS_NA_IMPORTANCE=yes set. Bear in mind that this will also affect the other nine subcategories of Category:NA-importance United States articles, such as Category:Template-Class United States articles of NA-importance, Category:Category-Class United States articles of NA-importance, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is a WikiProject category. Has WikiProject United States been notified of this proposal? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, twice, both less than ten minutes after the CFD was filed. The first of these is how I came to be here... --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The notifications could have been quicker, but I'm not at all familiar with which CfD notification templates do what, what parameters they take and whether they generate their own section headers or not. As for the double notification, I figured that the WT page would notify those who do the assessing and the Template talk those who maintain the templates. Whatever flaws I may have as an editor, failing to WikiProjects of deletion discussions is definitely not one of them - indeed possibly the exact opposite ;). Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
      • There's no problem as far as I'm concerned. Less than ten minutes is more than quick enough if you don't use automated tools (it's not as if you had left it 24 hours); and putting a note on both the Wikipedia talk: and the Template talk: should be sufficient to catch those who watch one but not the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Indeed, plenty quick. I just wanted to know whether it had been done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is completely pointless. Unless the use of NA for things like Category and template are deprecated completely (which might have some merit) then there is no reason to do this. There are lots of other things that need to be done this is not one of them. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Exactly what purpose is served by having this? NA in the assessment process is more of a place holder then a classification that is actually used. Like many projects, I suspect that the WP:US template was copied and pasted from several sources. Given that no one has explained how it is useful, it would appear that no one in the project is using this. Pointless or not, if there is no reason for the category, it should be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Its really no problem to delete it however then someone needs to do a bot request to remove the |importance=NA from thousands of articles and ensure that it stays removed. I would also say that if this is removed from this project, then it should be removed from others as well for the same arguments. This is not by far the only project that uses this so unless someone can prove that there is some valid reason it be removed from this project and not the others. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  Removing |importance=NA will not have any effect; see Talk:(US) where I have just removed that parameter: it's still in both Category:Redirect-Class United States articles of NA-importance and Category:NA-importance United States articles. You need to amend the {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualimpintersect}} contained inside {{WikiProject United States}}, as I stated earlier; and if this is done there will be no need to send a bot chasing around 43,102 talk pages - they'll simply drop out of the category when the job queue processes them. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  But then that still leaves the problem of having tens of thousands of articles with an uneeded and unused |importance=NA. This also causes the problem of making coding more difficult of changes are needed (like the articles for Kansas reverting to WPUS Kansas). This means that additional coding is needed to recognize with and without the importance parameter. Additionally, as I mentioned before, if this is an issue for WPUS, then it should be removed from all projects, not just this one. This isn't the only project that use the NA parameter. This to me is just another example of the systematic dismantling of the WPUS project. Frankly, I think there is merit to eliminating the NA importance altogether but if we do that we should do it across the board not pick this project because its not popular and is largely defenseless. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Hangzhou railway station stubs

• Propose renaming Category:Hangzhou railway station stubs to Category:Zhejiang‎ railway station stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. City-specific category undersized. Propose switching both category and template to province-level category. Should allow for more taggable articles and will provide parallelism with other Chinese rail station categories. Dawynn (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rename category, delete/upmerge/redirect the template as {{Zhejiang-railstation-stub}} already exists and is in use. And to save the same city/province confusion in future siblings, rename {{Dalian-railstation-stub}} to {{Liaoning-railstation-stub}}. The other 8 are already provinces. --Qetuth (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rainbow Codes

• Propose deleting Category:Rainbow Codes - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a case of categorisation by shared naming characteristic. The category groups a variety of United Kingdom defense programs that were named under the "Rainbow Code" scheme (color+random word), that range from nuclear bombs to space launch vehicles and radar sets. While it is true that categories and lists are often complimentary, this category is wholly redundant to List of Rainbow Codes and should be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• keep Or else delete every category on WP. It's a triviality that all categories could be replaced by static lists, the question is whether that's a good idea or not.

This is a category with excellent defining characteristics. The group it identifies, "Cold War military projects of the UK", is a substantial and significant one (although note that not all "projects" were major enough to have rainbow codenames). Conditions for their inclusion are clear. There is also a benefit, as usual, to using annotational markup on an article to push an article into its category than to maintain a list that pulls them in. That said, the list also has value as an annotated overall description of them – particularly as many were renamed over time.

I fail to even understand why the nominator would wish to delete this category. It's not merely a justifiable category, it's a good example of why they're useful and appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason I nominated it was, as I said, that this appears to be categorisation by shared name/naming characteristic. I'm quite happy to listen to arguments otherwise, but hyperbolic "delete noting or everything" comments don't help build or maintain the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment If this is category is (to be) deleted we could create an admin category (like Category:Redirects from ATC codes) for the redirects, and create some new redirects - e.g. "Red Dean (missile)" to make it complete. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete are categorization by shared name. It is not clear that anything but name ties these in a way that also excludes things not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow codes are far more than just a "shared name". If they are just a shared name and no more, then presumably you will also be AfDing List of Rainbow Codes, as any issues of notability would apply equally to a category or a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy, that's absolutely not how things work, as you should very well know. "Notability" has nothing to do with this category's nomination. It's because we don't categorise by shared name. The topic is extremely notable - for an article. Having a category that groups radars, nuclear bombs, missiles, etc. that have their only shared characteristic as their naming pattern, though, is not what the category system is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment we have lots of lists of things by their name, so having a shared name is at times notable. However I do not think in this case anything beyond their name creates a clear unity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That's what I'm trying to say, yeah. Having a shared name can indeed be (sometimes even very) notable, but a grounds for categorisation, it is not. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not convinced this is the same thing as the shared name categories usually deleted here. The list article does not make it clear - Was "Rainbow codes" an official term used by the military for the contents of {{UKColdWarProjects}}? Should this be renamed to some sort of "Cold War projects of the UK"? At the very least, I notice some of the articles lack any other position in the category tree of Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom, so it should be an upmerge not delete. --Qetuth (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See the AfD section below, Bushranger is already seeking to delete Category:Cold War military equipment of the United Kingdom and all date-related military categories, because of WP:OC#PERF and the view that military conflicts should be treated the same as theatrical performances. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You might wish to rephrase your statement to reflect the facts. At no point have I stated I wish to delete "all date-related military categories". Weapons by conflict is not defining, but weapons by era is, and as I've said elsewhere the Cold War categories are just fine as by era instead of by conflict. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Boer War weapons and Gulf War equipment

• Propose deleting Category:First Boer War weapons - Template:Lc1
  
• Propose upmerge Category:First Boer War artillery to Category:First Boer War
• Propose deletion Category:Second Boer War artillery
• Propose deletion Category:Second Boer War infantry weapons
• Propose deletion Category:Second Boer War infantry weapons of Australia
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War artillery
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War guided missiles
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War aircraft
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War launchers
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War tanks
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War vehicles
• Propose deletion Category:Gulf War armoured vehicles
• Propose deletion/upmerge Category:Military equipment of the Gulf War (see note below)

Category:Gulf War ships and List of Gulf War military equipment should be moved to Category:Gulf War.

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing a type of weapon by a war in which it's been used is against WP:DEFINING and WP:OC#PERFORM. Previous discussions about similar categories include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_24#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Falklands_War. Note: This nom is a step towards the deletion of most/all of Category:Military equipment by conflict. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• oppose Nomination is inappropriate. I presume the nominator meant WP:OC#PERF as a simple typo, but even that is about actors in a play, not military hardware. If we look at the parent category of one of those nominated, Category:Military aircraft by war we see that there are a number of sibling categories that are of comparable definition, but more densely populated. The only difference would seem to be their member count and state of completion, nomination for which would fly in the face of WP:IMPERFECT. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • They all need to go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Listify then delete -- These are in the nature of performacne by performer categories, even though the performers here are the weapons, not actors. This is one of a long line of such noms over the last week or so that have eben getting similar responses. The Australian Boer War category can go completely, as it is unlikely that they did not use British weapons. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:OC#PERF I#ve added Category:Military aircraft of World War II to this nomination.

• Propose deleting Category:Military aircraft of World War II - Template:Lc1
  

Nominator's rationale: As for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_11#Boer_War_weapons_and_Gulf_War_equipment

If any one of these should be deleted per WP:OC#PERF, then all should go. Anything else would just be WP:RECENTISM. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all, and agree that they should all go. The WWI and WWII categories may be retainable - but they fall under the problem that everything from that era would be categorised in them. "By operator" and "By conflict" are things that should be lists; "By country of origin" and "By manufacturer" are valid categorisations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all we should not categorise by conflict/war/campaign or operator. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete As I have said before this is actually worse than the performance category. At least there we know the subject of the article was invovled in the listed production. Here though the subject of the article is not a specific weapon, but a mass produced thing, in which case very rarely was all the production involved in the war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Delete all, per Bushranger's + JPL's excellent arguments. Nothing more to add. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Listify -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question why isn't Category:Second Boer War weapons included in this nomination?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Overlooked? It can be C1'd if these are deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes - also Category:Military equipment of the Second Boer War, Category:Second Boer War military equipment of Australia and Category:Second Boer War weapons of Australia. As one of those categories contains an article a separate CFD may be needed. DexDor (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_16#Category:Military_equipment_of_the_Second_Boer_War DexDor (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft manufactured by Algeria (etc)

• Propose renaming Category:Aircraft manufactured by Algeria to Category:Aircraft of Algeria

Nominator's rationale: Aircraft types (like other vehicle types) are often manufactured under licence in many countries, but it's the country of design (also normally the original manufacturer) that's the defining characteristic. There's recently been a discussion about this at WikiProject Aircraft. The navbox on these pages refers to "Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer" and this change will make it easier to resist pressure from some editors to place articles about aircraft manufactured only under licence in a country in that country's category. This change will also align the category with (for example) the categories below Category:Weapons by country. This nom is for a single category (to avoid placing a CFD tag on the other categories at this stage), but the intention is that if this category is renamed that the other (approx 60) similar categories below Category:Aircraft by country will be nominated for similar renaming. After renaming the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft may purge the categories of any articles that are now ineligible. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The way this category system now works is 'Aircraft manufactured by Fooistan' is the parent cat, and that category gets filled with subcategories of 'Aircraft by Fooinc', where each Category:Aircraft by manufacturer subcategory is also under its appropriate country subcat in Category:Aircraft by country. Ideally there should be no articles at all in each by-country subcat of Category:Aircraft by country, only subcats by manufacturer, with each article on an aircraft type in one of those subcategories. Also, "Aircraft of Foo" opens the possibility of a user adding types that were operated by, or in, a specific country, instead of having been built there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There are currently no "Aircraft of..." categories so can you clarify ? DexDor (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Gah, my brain inverted the target and subject categories. Fixed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose -- most countries import most of theri aircraft from a few countries in which manufacture is concentrated. We do not want Boeing 747 cluttered with categories for all the countries whose airlines have bought some. That is in the nature of a performance by performer category. I agree that countries where aircraft are merely assembled may also be undesirable, but that may depend on the scale of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose category has a place in an existing and established category tree relating to the manufacturer of the type, aircraft of is ambigous and could be used to indicate aircraft operated by and we dont normally categorise by user. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Algeria. The issue here is where the aircraft was manufactured, but to say it is done by a country seems to be incorrect, at least in some cases. Boeing planes may be made in the United States, but that does not mean they are made by the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Rename per JPL; that which happens in a country is not necessarily "by" said country. I have doubts about a set of categories "Aircraft of Foo" because the fact that a 727 is flown (in, over, by airlines registered in) Foo is trivial IMO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question for JPL & Carlossuarez46: How will you categorise the manufacturing location of the Airbus A380? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Category:Airbus aircraft < Category:International aircraft, I'd imagine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I hadn't spotted that category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)