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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Royal Navy courts martial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a non-defining category, apparently applied to ships, and also at the moment, one series of accidents which resulted in a court-martial. The loss of a ship routinely resulted in a court-martial to investigate the circumstances of the loss, so this can be for any ship captured, shipwrecked, etc. It could also be for a wide range of many other reasons. It could apply to people who were court-martialled, the incidents which caused it, etc. If we had articles on the specific court-martials themselves this category might be appropriate, but we don't. This discussion recently resulted in the deletion of another category non-defining for the ship articles. Benea (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Repurpose to Category:Royal Navy ships that were sunk or something. The 40 sub-cats of Category:Ships of the Royal Navy don't include such a category, which would seem useful & interesting & is certainly defining. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless it is used exclusively for courts-martial themselves. The articles now populating this category are all on ships, a fortified island, and a battle. Perhaps it would have some utility if also applied to individuals subjected to notable courts-martial (e.g., Bligh, Byng), where the proceedings are part of the biographical article, but the category is not now used for such pages, and has no valid use for vessels. Kablammo (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The articles are on ships, not court martials. Plus, not all these ships were sunk, the one article I looked at was on a ship captured by the French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well obviously it would need weeding out (and adding to) if repurposed, but it is not yet large. Johnbod (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Keep or Rename -- Category:Royal Navy ships for which a courts martial was held I believe that a court martial followed a ship being captured by the enemy as well as sunk. One case I examined related to a failure to engage the enemy, where the captain was acquitted with honour. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courts martial is the plural. And they are not held for ships, but members of the crew, commanding officers, admirals, etc. For anything from disciplinary offences to alleged mismanagement of a fleet in battle. Do all the ships that were present at Cape Finisterre get the category because Calder was court-martialled over the battle? Virtually every ship in existence probably had at least one member of her crew that was court-martialled, for drunkenness, sodomy, or any one of a number of offences, crimes that would have changed over the history of Royal Navy. An equivalent category would be Category:Public houses for which a trial was held, because someone might have been assaulted once while in there on a night out. The present category is absolutely non-defining, as you point out in your keep argument, court-martials are held for any number of reasons, relating to the behaviour of members of the crew (i.e. the circumstances that caused a ship to be lost or captured), and not the ships themselves. Benea (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments of Benea, Kablammo ec. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The characteristic is not defining for the subjects, mainly ships, being categorized. A category for articles about courts martial would be useful, but I could not locate any such articles. A category for people who were subjected to courts martial would be questionable, in my opinion, since generally it is not defining merely to be charged at a court martial and, depending on the charges (e.g., drunkenness), sometimes not even to be convicted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:59, 7 August 2013 (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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Retro video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Retro-style video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: "Retro game" is not an established video gaming term and is a subjective label that reliable game press (such as WP:VG/RS) does not apply or categorize by consistently, it is usually up to reviewer to label it as "retro" in some form, usually art assets or audio/score. The term (retrogaming) refers to old games, the intent here was probably "games with graphics made to resemble those of old games". The current criteria for the category is original research and technically incorrect (having sprites or a limited palette does not automatically mean "retro"). The majority of pages added don't have references for this and appear to be editor's interpretation. To sum up, I believe such fine distinction of game's style (even if reliably sourced for certain games), is WP:OVERCAT.(brought attention to this after Minecraft was categorized in it.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because a contemporary video game doesn't have "retro" directly listed as it's genre, doesn't mean its not Retro. It simply refers to modern video games using oldschool sprites (i.e. Minecraft). For reference, several gaming developers have classied their games as "Retro" see: (Zeboyd Games) or refer to Retro City Rampage. Retrogaming isn't limited to just old games. http://jtmgames.com/2013/03/09/retro-gaming-when-old-is-new-and-cool/ Beem2 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this category is going to cause an issue, you can delete it or I can rename it "Retro-Style video games".Beem2 (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The pages have now been moved to newly-created Category:Retro-style video games. I am adding that to my nomination as being almost identical to the first one. To make it clear, my rationale is not about the name, but the subjective categorization criteria. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack the article Retro-style video games which we should have before we consider making a category. Note that even if we had the article, that would not force a category, but without an article we have no evidence the concept is clearly understood or has an accepted agreed on definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2013 (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: Keep. If a rename is to happen it must be from the top of the tree on down. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I offer two different proposal scenarios, either one I think would work:

• 1)Propose merging Category:American child actresses to Category:American child actors

Nominator's rationale: There isn't a similar category for boy actors. There are approximately 1,200 female child actors and 1,200 male child actors. This would be a general category to hold both male and female child actors which would hold approximately 2,400 different biographical articles.

• 2) Propose renaming Category:American child actresses to Category:American female child actors
• Propose creating Category:American male child actors
• Proposing merging contents of Category:American child actors to Category:American male child actors

Nominator's rationale This would establish a parity, both a Category:American female child actors and Category:American male child actors as child categories to the parent category Category:American child actors (whose contents would be only these two subcategories and any lists there might be). Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment There were big discussions about the actors/actresses cats a while back, I don't remember when, but this seems to be the framework that was settled upon. In any case, if we make a change, we should do it for the whole tree, not just the kids. I believe the "actors" cat is intended to hold boys - IOW, they are supposed to be fully gender diffused. Someone plz correct me if this is not the case.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussions started last August or September, and ran I at least until February. The issue of female actor vs. actress was never really decided, the only clear decision was to split by gender. On the other hand Category:American male actors survived two different attempts to get rid of it, and I think the idea was that we were supposed to implement the formula lower down, but while me and a few others did so with the actresses categories, we never did as much with the male actors categories. Still, up until last August there was no dividing people in acting by gender, and after the female writers wars in April I just have not had the desire to reenter this fight. There is Category:American male film actors, but it could use a lot of work in expanding it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:American child actresses per parent Category:American actresses. Create Category:American male child actors as subcat of Category:American child actors and Category:American male actors. Oculi (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:American child actresses and create (probably through massive moving of virtually everything at Category:American child actors) to Category:American male child actors. Acting is very gender defining. Dylan Sprayberry was cast as the young Clark Kent in Man of Steel because he was male. They arguably cast a too old Judy Garland as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, but they never would have considered giving the role to a male. Gender if defining in the vast majority of acting roles. I have actually started the Male child actors cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whether this should be child actresses or child female actors is another question, I would argue that actresses is the more common term. However, it should match other sub-cats of Category:American actresses, and should not be renamed alone, but only in consideration with those categories. Also for what it is worth there is Category:British child actresses, so the American category should not be considered without its non-American sisters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this discussion is really to consider doing anything to Category:American child actors, that category should be tagged as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I will but I'm not sure which of the three tag options (delete, merge, rename) I should use. Maybe having two proposal options made it confusing but they both address the problem and either could work. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- We had this very discussion about (adult) actresses a few months back. There has been a feminist campaign that actresses were really female actors, probably related to claims for equal pay. Acting is one of the professions where gender is most significant: women pay women and men play men (with occasional cross-dressing exceptions}. We need separate male and female categories and the female form of actor is "actress". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Which proposal are you opposing? Because there are several changes mentioned, some of which would address your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Question If it's decided that changes are to be made, are they done manually or is there a bot that can find and replace categories? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Except for complex tasks that require case-by-case sorting or judgment, category changes generally are implemented by a bot. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Category:American child actresses is merely one in a larger family of similar categories. The current title adheres to the convention of both Category:American actresses and Category:Child actresses. In order for this category to be renamed, one or both of these categories should first be renamed to Category:American female actors or Category:Female child actors. Likewise, any decision to do away with the male/female split (in my opinion, it was a misguided decision to implement such a split) should be implemented at a higher level so that it affects all categories of actors by nationality. There is no reason to single out the American category in particular. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:20, 7 August 2013 (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: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Stewartstown, New Hampshire to Category:People from Coos County, New Hampshire

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just two entries. ...William 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Place of birth generally is not defining, yet both individuals in the category are connected to Stewartstown only by birth. They have no strong connection to either Stewartstown or Coos County. So, my first preference is to delete the category; if there is no consensus for that course of action, then I support merging per the nominator's rationale. However, this example also highlights a danger with merging in the manner proposed: Stewartstown was incorporated in 1795, but Coos County was not established until 1803. Yet, under our existing category scheme, we would identify someone who lived in Stewartstown from 1795 to 1802 as a person "from Coos County". Of course, there are many administrative divisions around the world that are far more modern than Coos County, and it is there that the problem is most apparent. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (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: Keep.

• Propose deleting Category:Archaeological terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Articles like Amphora are about things (not words). WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Is the intention that every article about archaeology whose title is a term would go in this category ? - that wouldn't be a useful category. See the inclusion criteria at Category:Terminology, the discussion at Category talk:Terminology, my essay at User:DexDor/TermCat and a previous terminology CFD. There's a related discussion here. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nom, but am not quite ready to abandon the idea that terminology categories can be useful. I've commented at the other current debate, & suggest people read that and the other helpful links in the nom. I would add to the essay criteria concepts that have a special meaning in a field beyond their normal one - examples here are assemblage (archaeology) and archaeological association. This might rather rarely include things (can't think of an example right now), but not normally terms like amphora or agora for things that are (today) always to do with archaeology (loosely defined). I think what we need to do is to agree a definition of the proper scope of all "terminology" categories (and the essay above is a good starting point), then post a stern note with a link to it on all "terminology" category pages. It should perhaps be explained that this is a new category with the British spelling, created rather prematurely while a discussion to rename the old (US spelling) category is ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4#Category:Archeological_terminology (same link as above). Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The points made above by DexDor and Johnbod are not without merit. However the current practice here, which I have to assume is the result of a consensus either explicit or tacit, is to have Category:Foo terminology and to place in it articles whose titles have a specific meaning in the context of Foo. DexDor appears to have a particular aversion to such categories because (as I understand the argument) they are in Category:Terminology and thus in Category:Language and therefore ought to be about linguistics. That is easily fixed by removing Category:Terminology from Category:Language. If there is to be a general discussion of whether or not we should have terminology categories of this sort, it should be a properly formulated RfC, not a random deletion of a single category (which, if successful, can of course be cited as a precedent in a subsequent CfD). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For most subjects we do not have a terminology category - e.g. there isn't a "Fruit terminology" category (if there was would you put the Apple article in it because the word apple has a specific meaning in the context of fruit ?). That an article like Hydroseeding is categorized under Category:Language is good evidence (assuming the basic principles of WP:SUBCAT etc are correct) that something has been miscategorized; however the main practical problem these categories cause is that articles are placed in them instead of being placed in the appropriate category. The inclusion criteria specified at Category:Terminology indicate that it's appropriate for that category to be under Category:Language - the miscategorization is happening at a lower level. An RfC might help, but it would be unlikely to kill this tree completely because there's articles like Medical terminology that are quite legitimately in a terminology category. "place in it articles whose titles..." shows that your proposed scheme categorizes articles by title rather than by subject (i.e. if an article was renamed to a synonym the article might no longer belong in the category). DexDor (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- We have only just had a discussion on this. A glossary is a useful article. It is useful to have the definitions together. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2013 (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: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Modern military equipment of Japan to Category:Post–Cold War military equipment of Japan
• Propose renaming Category:Modern weapons of Japan to Category:Post–Cold War weapons of Japan
• Propose renaming Category:Modern anti-tank missiles of Japan to Category:Post–Cold War anti-tank missiles of Japan

Nominator's rationale: Rename to avoid the ambiguous word "modern" - sometimes it means from 19th Century, but usually it refers to a much more recent period. For info: A previous similar CFD was Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Category:Modern_military_equipment_of_Germany. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I'm not sure the "post Cold War" categorisation is a useful one, it seems to be the least-worst option. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename definitely use postcoldwar for periodization. It's atleast an identifiable period -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Why is each country being nominated individually instead of Category:Modern military equipment as a whole being nominated? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:42, 7 August 2013 (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: Delete. Would have potentailly been a listify, but the list is already at Q (Star Trek)#List of all appearances. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Star Trek Q episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Trivial association: We can't categorize a large media franchise by every individual character who appears in a piece of media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep having inspected the contents the connection appears non-trivial. All episodes in the category have the character Q central and features in the titles of several of the episodes e.g. Q-Less. Tim! (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William 13:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; pretty crufty. We don't generally subdivide TV program episodes in this sort of way. Fan websites do it often, but WP doesn't need to emulate this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Listify and why do we have so many articles on non-notable episodes? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a real trivial criteria; next we'll be having Category:Brady Bunch episodes having to do with Jan, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this page useful, Q is a very interesting character, and watching just the episodes related to Q is a very reasonable idea - and what made me found this page in the first place. That said, the content appears to be duplicated in relation to the List of all appearances section in Q. If we renamed that section to "List of all episodes", it would be more relevant to people searching for Q episodes (e.g. in Google), and then we wouldn't need the separate category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.202.13 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to Q (Star Trek)#List of all appearances; since that has already taken place, delete. The characteristic is not defining as it groups real-world subjects (episodes of a TV series) on the basis of an in-universe characteristic; information of this type is more suitable for a list than a category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:52, 7 August 2013 (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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:IRB Junior World Championship team navigational boxes
• Nominator's rationale: This is a junior rugby union tournament so its squads navboxes are unnecessary. Their categories also should be deleted. Banhtrung1 (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The category seems to serve a useful purpose by separating the navboxes from the main category. If the navboxes are deleted (they are currently nominated), then this category could be speedily deleted under criterion G8 as a page dependent on a set of deleted pages. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:56, 7 August 2013 (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: Rename to Category:Bookstores in the Netherlands. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bookstores in The Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - a category of one doesn't seem to serve much purpose, and it does not appear to have a good possibility of much expansion ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep part of the series Category:Bookstores by country but fix the capitalisation by renaming to Category:Bookstores in the Netherlands. Tim! (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep small cats can be kept as part of a series. Plus, what gives you the impression there aren't more than 1 valid articles about bookstores in the netherlands to be created? the netherlands version of the wikipedia has several articles about bookstores. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Bookstores in the Netherlands. Then the category needs to be populated, probably from Category:Companies of the Netherlands, Category:Retail companies of the Netherlands‎, and Category:Bookstores  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  05:51, 1 August 2013 (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.