May 14
Category:Baniya people
- 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. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise people by caste. Sitush (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2018 (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:Angelic-themed television 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: merge. I have ensured that all the contents are also held elsewhere in the hierarchy of the other valid parent Category:Fantasy television series. – Fayenatic London 12:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Hard to decipher a difference in the definition of these categories; if having angels is defining for a show (otherwise the show's article ought not be in either category as being a trivial aspect), then whether it's "themed" or not is really just a matter of opinion and these ought to be merged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, at most it may make a difference whether it is in series versus other types of television programs but I do not think that this distinction is really important. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was looking at this category yesterday while filling Category:Religious comedy television series and couldn't see a difference. What's more, the latter category sounds like it should be for specific angel characters, and as far as I can tell there are no articles for individual TV angels. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 15 May 2018 (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.
Aircraft categories
- 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. ℯxplicit 03:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1900–1909 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1900s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1910–1919 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1910s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1920–1929 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1920s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1930–1939 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1930s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1940–1949 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1940s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1950–1959 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1950s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1960–1969 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1960s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1970–1979 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1970s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1980–1989 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1980s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 1990–1999 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 1990s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 2000–2009 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 2000s
- Propose renaming Category:Aircraft 2010–2019 to Category:Aircraft first flown in the 2010s
- Nominator's rationale: Real content of categories is "Aircraft first flown in the (decade)". See category decriptions for Category:Aircraft 2010–2019, it contains only aircraft first flown since 2010 till 2019, so the first flight was made in the 2010s. My proposition is to rename all such categories to more correct format: Category:Aircraft first flown in 2000s, Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010s etc (by decade). If approved, all subcategories (by country or type) will be renamed also using similar format, of course (in the future nominations: Category:Chinese aircraft 2010–2019 to Category:Chinese aircraft first flown in the 2010s). Note, already existing Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010, Category:Aircraft first flown in 2011, ... Category:Aircraft first flown in 2017 will be the subcategories of future Category:Aircraft first flown in 2010s, for example. In the current category structure, Category:2010s means the same range, "from 2010 to 2019 (inclusive)". 217.30.192.236 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The current names of these categories are not consistent with anything else, and the nomination will make the decade categories match their sub-cats by year e.g. Category:Aircraft first flown in 1900. However, the aircraft categories would then still not match any others. Consider ALT-1 Category:Aircraft introduced in the 1900s to match Category:Vehicles introduced in the 1900s (which I have just added as a parent), and ALT-2 Category:1900s aircraft to be consistent with siblings such as Category:1900s automobiles and Category:1900s ships. On the other hand, is it perhaps desirable to keep the unambiguous words "first flown" to specify which event is being treated as defining, out of the long process of introduction? – Fayenatic London 07:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as between nom and Fayenatic london's two alternatives; I'd prefer ALT-2, as more in keeping with putting the year first and the "vehicles introduced" category could be renamed in a later discussion. Moreover, the terminology of "introduced" is ambiguous. When was the Boeing 747 "introduced"; in 1966 when Pan Am ordered 25 of them? In 1969, when the first model was available and flown? Or in 1970, when it entered into commercial service? Our featured article's infobox uses the last of these dates, but the article is categorized in Category:United States airliners 1960–1969. First flown may be less ambiguous, but may differ markedly from when it entered commercial production and use (the Airbus A380 had 2+ years, and probably isn't the longest time lag); then there are examples like Tupolev Tu-110, which first flew in 1957 and was never used commercially. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The gap between first flight and introduction to service for F-35 is about 10 years. DexDor (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or ALT-2. Note: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories Aircraft projects that were cancelled without ever flying are categorised by the year the project was terminated ... (e.g. Avro 730 is in decade categories, although F-111K currently isn't) - thus changing the category names to "first flown" doesn't exactly match the meaning (for this minority of aircraft). DexDor (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with ALT-2 (as nominator). So, rename 2010–2019 category to the Category:2010s aircraft, and subcategories by country to the Category:2010s Chinese aircraft. Also rename subcategories by year: Category:Aircraft first flown in 2017 to Category:2017 aircraft for consistency. 217.30.192.236 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose renaming Just noticed this discussion as the project doesnt appear to have been notified, the aircraft cats are parents of a family of cats not related to the flown in (which is a recent addition) so really just need to be left alone rather than break the whole aircraft category system. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @MilborneOne, it's not clear what you mean with breaking the whole category system. The proposal ALT-2 does not involve any 'first flown in' wording, and seems to be a sensible simplification of the current category names with no change in meaning, also in line with similar categories for other vehicles. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All the child cats (and they are lots) are based on decades not years. Aircraft have not followed vehicle categorisation as the noteworthy date is the first flown not introduced (and they are not always considered to be vehicles!) so the recent adding of Category:Aircraft 1900–1909 to Category:Vehicles introduced in the 1900s is just plain wrong. The ALT2 would involve in breaking up all the many sub-cats by year not something that can be done by a bot and I presume if the propsal is accepted would the nominator change all the 10,000 odd aircraft articles that would need to be changed? I am not adverse to some tweaking but I think we would need to loose the Vehicles introduced in the Foos first and sort out the Vehicle categories to make sense. Messing about around the edges is just going to make things worse. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @MilborneOne: As for notifying projects, there is no longer a need to do this manually on project talk pages; alerts are automated for the projects that have banners on the category talk pages, and both Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Article alerts correctly include links to this CFD. Projects do well to encourage their members to include the Alerts pages on their personal watchlists. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Not all notable aircraft types actually flew. For example most of the Blohm & Voss designs described in multiple RS did not. [update] A great many others flew only in prototype form and were never "introduced" to service, on a scale unique to aircraft. The current category names are sufficiently non-specific to embrace these aircraft, the proposed naming system is not. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC) [Updated 08:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)][reply]
- I also endorse MilborneOne's opposition to "introduction" and to messing round the edges, and would note that for ships, which may be launched in one year and commissioned, i.e. introduced, in another, the word "introduced" is omitted and the date of launch is used. Best to agree a common format for all three transport projects before changing anything. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:56, 12 June 2018 (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:Performance capture in film
- 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. @JDDJS: please restore former members as discussed. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: According to our own article on Motion capture, performance capture is specifically when facial expressions are captured. I've been removing articles that only have motion capture to reflect that, but after further consideration, I started to wonder if it just made more sense to rename it rather than remove them. JDDJS (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support @JDDJS: Given the rename, would you feel then that the category could be used for both performance capture and motion capture films (ie, this cat would be a catch-all)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rename goes through, definitely, which is why I stopped removing articles from the category. If it goes through, I'll re-add all the motion capture films I removed. JDDJS (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2018 (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:State University of New York television stations
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Only has one page, no need for this category. Rusf10 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2018 (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.