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:Delete. This is a collection of biographies and articles about animation techniques, and despite the historical connection I do not think it is appropriate to categorise these pages together. As for the biographies by themselves, they already have a list at Disney's Nine Old Men and a navigation template at Template:Nine Old Men. If the category is not deleted, it should be renamed to Category:Disney's Nine Old Men, but that was deleted per CFD 2007 for reasons which still seem valid. – FayenaticLondon 22:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abosolutely agree. Someone has changed it from the original "Disney's Nine Old Men"! --Janke | Talk 08:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this should be taken to a full discussion. The target was deleted following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_1#Category:Disney's_Nine_Old_Men and the grounds for deletion still seem valid: there is both a list and a template. Moreover, the current category usage is a mixture of biographies and techniques, which is arguably not a valid way to categorise pages. Although I acknowledge the connection, a full discussion should be needed to overturn the original decision. – FayenaticLondon 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reading the old CFD I agree with the reasoning and the outcome. Suggest if this is deleted that both iterations of the name be salted as likely re-creation targets. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:20, 11 January 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:Nursing boards in the United States[edit]
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.
Comment: I disagree with Armbrust on this one - that article doesn't provide a good description for the category. I prefer the original suggestion. – FayenaticLondon 15:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C2D, however, isn't applicable to that rename, and it needs a full discussion. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:52, 9 January 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.
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.
Upmerge -- Too narrow an intersection to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 19 January 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.
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 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. -Splash - tk 23:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful to categorize large geographic features by small and changing administrative areas. In this case it is supposed to be a category of islands by proximity to a portion of another island. Much more useful to categorize islands by archipelago and sea. The category was created by a blocked sock puppet. ELEKHHT 14:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure it is a useful category here, but it does exist on bahasa Indonesia Wikipedia: id:Kategori:Pulau di Jawa Tengah. It is part of an islands per providence structure. I have added Karimun Java to the cat, if only temporarily until this discussion deletes it. I may have once cared, but that type of information is now able to be managed in Wikidata. User:Merbabu may have more to add to this discussion. John Vandenberg(chat) 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't take the Indonesian Wikipedia as a guide for categories here, or any other area of en.wiki to be frank. I say this as someone who edits it from time to time in a mostly futile attempt to help and knows in what a sorry state it is. Back to the issue, there is I think a confusion between physical geography and human geography. What I object to here is making physical geographic elements a subcategory of a small and ephemeral human geographic category. If anything, one could have separate category trees, but having Kambangan Island removed from broader physical geography categories to be chunked into a province category (currently 34, eight created in the last 15 years, a dozen more proposed) is not helping the study of geography IMO. I am afraid this is precisely a spill-over from id.wiki where there is a prevalence of government POV. Perhaps the problem is clearer if hypothetically applying this category type to other provinces: it would easily lead to empty categories like "Category:Islands of Yogyakarta" or circular categorisation such as Bali >Geography of Bali >Islands of Bali >Bali. --ELEKHHT 23:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts here shouldn't be seen as supporting the category that has been proposed for deletion. I do agree that moving pages from physical geography categories into human geography categories is inappropriate; if anything, we should have both trees as you suggest. We also have Category:Islands of South Australia (and similar for each state), and a dedicated container 'by state' category Category:Islands of the United States by state. John Vandenberg(chat) 02:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I was waiting for a parallel with Australia :), but I am not sure if is a useful comparison. First, in terms of physical geography, Indonesia is an archipelago while Australia is a continent. A category of islands by state/province for AU will give some rudimentary indication of geographic location (i.e. in which sea/ocean is the island), but not for Indonesia where an island of Central Java can be in the Java Sea or the Indian Ocean. Second, in terms of human geography, Australia is a federation and thus the link between natural resources on the one hand and local laws and economy on the other hand might be more relevant, but Indonesia is not a federation. Thirdly I think we have to consider also that "similar stuff exists" is not a good argument. Same applies to the US. --ELEKHHT 05:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. So far, I see no persuasive reason not to categorise Indonesian islands by both political/administrative boundaries and by geographical boundaries. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categorizing islands by the political unit they are part of is standard procedure. While not permanently defining, we accept the application of some non-permanent traits in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 24 January 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.
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: Strange Wikipedia user category with only two members. John Vandenberg(chat) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete not convinced this is helpful to collaboration.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'keep' not strange, there are many users who feel that WP:LETITGO in its different names and variations is important. You are correct that only two users used it to mark themselves with that category, but that would probably be for lack of publicity. If there is an alternative let it be known. I now added it to the horse carcass page, let's see what happens. BTW there could be two interpretations to LETITGO - probably you would read it as Stop arguing and let us delete it. But if you read it carefully you'll notice that arguing about the definition of a 'cat owner' is futile, and you are kindly requested to just let go and leave the article and it's writer alone. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary and unusually named category. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 10 January 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.
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:Delete. This is far too specific a grouping - the two articles would link to each other, potentially, if there was any good source making a thematic connection between the two. But even so, this category definitely ought not to exist.Zythe (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i still think there is no need to merge as both articles are already in appropriate sub-cats of that one, namely Buffyverse comics and Angel episodes. – FayenaticLondon 22:33, 14 January 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.
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, as it seems that some further work is needed to identify the best splits/names for these categories. -Splash - tk 23:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This one should be pretty self-explanatory, unless, of course, the films themselves are underwater. Grutness...wha? 07:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
inclined to oppose In going through some of the listings it appears that probably half of the films feature a submarine as a prominent element, but relatively little of the action takes place on the sub. Therefore saying that Yellow Submarine is "set on a submarine" isn't that accurate: mostly the sub serves as a conveyance from scene to scene. On the other hand I agree that the current naming is ambiguous. Perhaps "Films featuring submarines" might be better? Seyasirt (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that I wouldn't oppose this rename if we decided to split out those in which the action does largely take place on the submarine set. But I'm dubious that this really a good way to divide up these films, and we would still be left with the problem of what to do with the rest of them. Seyasirt (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support I don't think we're demanding that 50% of screen time be set on the submarine; however, in most of these films the submarine is a key plot element. We should purge this of any films where a submarine shows up, and keep it focused on films like Hunt for Red October or Das Boot which are really classic examples of the genre.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The renaming significantly narrows the scope, to no obvious purpose. For example, a film about the pursuit of a submarine which only ever portrayed it from the outside would not be "set in a submarine", even if that sub was the defining feature of the film. Nor would a film about the construction of a submarine, or one about a wreck. I can see no point in separating the two. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if there is significant opposition to the proposed name, may I suggest that some alternative still be discussed? The current name, "Submarine films", is clearly ambiguous, as it suggests these are films that are underwater. Seyasirt's suggestion of Category:Films featuring submarines seems more sensible, though Obiwan's caveat about the importance of submarines to the plot is worth noting. It's also worth noting, with regards to BHG's comment, that the equivalent category for aircraft (listed below for different reasons) includes such films as Flight of the Phoenix, which deals with the construction and wreck of aircraft but is not predominantly set on one. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of these categories are subcats of Category:Films about submarine warfare so it would be better for those categories to be named "Films about submarine warfare in World War I" etc. DexDor (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG ; and seems like category resorting is in order per DexDor's finding of incorrect parenting. This could be accomplished by reparenting though. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 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.
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. Per other similar categories (e.g., Category:Films set on trains, Category:Films set in airports, Category:Films set in hotels). While it is true that most (but not all) of these films are set on just one aeroplane (or, at least, one plane per film), the same could easily be said - with their respective settings - of the other film categories mentioned, and thie current wording excludes the possibility of films set on more than one plane. Grutness...wha? 07:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicating that some scenes are set on board a plane is defining for a film containing such scenes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 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:Lists of Billboard Hot Digital Songs number-one songs[edit]
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:RELISTED today. -Splash - tk 23:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Seems to coincide with the articles within the category and a number of sister categories under Category:Lists of number-one songs in the United States. Also provides a more generic and stable name than using the actual chart name, which can change time and again (as with "Hot Digital Songs" just being changed to "Digital Songs" this week). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:58, 9 January 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.
