Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 29

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional anti–human trafficking activists to Category:Fictional human rights activists

Nominator's rationale: Not a very populated category. JDDJS (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. We do not need to subcategorize fictional characters on anywhere near as finely-grained a set of distinctions as we categorize real-life people — for starters, the number of fictional characters with enough standalone notability to warrant their own separate articles, rather than simply being discussed in the article on the fictional work from whence they came, isn't even a fraction of one per cent the number of articles about real people. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. The category includes two articles and a redirect. Way too small to be viable. Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 23:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:English MPs 1640–48 (up to Pride's Purge) to Category:English MPs 1640–48
• Category:English MPs 1648–53 (Rump)‎ to Category:English MPs 1648–53

Nominator's rationale: Un-needed disambiguators. I have nominated these two separately to the 3 nominated in the section below, because the next group has no common years -- but these two both involve 1648.
I have listed them as a separate group in case anyone thinks that requires special treatment, but I don't think it should. Most categories of MP-by-term end partway through a year, to be followed by another category beginning in the same year, and don't require any explanation in the title. In the 17th-century alone we have English MPs 1661–79‎/English MPs 1679‎ and English MPs 1680–81‎/English MPs 1681‎, plus the whole series from 1689–1700: English MPs 1689–90‎/English MPs 1690‎/English MPs 1690–95‎/English MPs 1695–98‎/English MPs 1698–1700‎.
All them work without a parenthesised descriptor in the title, so we can do the same with this pair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These MPs were in service during the English Civil War (1642-1651) and there might be a bit of a problem in defining their term of service. The [List of Parliaments of England]] provides a rather complex picture of what happened.:
  • The Kingdom of England had no active Parliament between March, 1629 and February, 1640.
  • Charles I of England called for a new Parliament in February, 1640. This Parliament assembled in April, 1640. They turned out to be hostile to the interests of the King and Charles I dissolved the Parliament in May, 1640. This was the so-called Short Parliament.
  • Charles I called for a new Parliament in September, 1640. The Parliament was first assembled in November, 1640. Through various developments, this version remained active until March, 1660. This was the so-called Long Parliament.
  • In the initial phase of the Long Parliament, the Parliament was in session from November, 1640 to August, 1642. Then Charles I raised the royal standard to summon an army against them, an event which signifies the beginning of the English Civil War.
  • In the second phase of the Long Parliament (August, 1642-December, 1648), the Parliament led its own faction of the Civil War. A second, rival Parliament was in service to the royalist faction from January, 1644 to March, 1645. This was the so-called Oxford Parliament, and mainly consisted of royalist members of the Long Parliament. This is the only case of rival Parliaments in England.
  • In December, 1648, came the event known as Pride's Purge. Soldiers of the New Model Army under Thomas Pride arrested a number of dissenting MPs and excluded others from political service. The result was a much smaller version of the Parliament, the so-called Rump Parliament. They were in service from December, 1648 to April, 1653. Oliver Cromwell used military force to dissolve this Parliament.
  • Oliver Cromwell called for a new Parliament in June, 1653. This Parliament first assembled in July 1653. They were dissolved in December, 1653. This was the so-called Barebone's Parliament, considered dysfunctional.
  • Oliver Cromwell called for a new Parliament in June, 1654. They first assembled in September, 1654 and remained in service until January, 1655. This was the so-called First Protectorate Parliament, known for their hostility to Cromwell's interests. This Parliament included members from Scotland and Ireland.
  • Oliver Cromwell called for a new Parliament in July, 1656. They first assembled in September, 1656 and remained in service until February, 1658. They were dissolved due to fears of new plots against Cromwell's regime. This was the so-called Second Protectorate Parliament. This Parliament included members from Scotland and Ireland.
  • Richard Cromwell called for a new Parliament in December, 1658. They first assembled in January, 1659 and remained in service until April, 1659. They were dissolved due to the demands of the army leadership. This was the so-called Third Protectorate Parliament. This Parliament included members from Scotland and Ireland.
  • The Rump Parliament was recalled to action in May, 1659. In this phase of the Rump Parliament, they remained in session until October, 1659. They were forcibly dissolved by the army of John Lambert.
  • The Rump Parliament was recalled to action in December, 1659. In this phase of the Rump Parliament, they remained in session until February, 1660. The new military leader George Monck ended the Rump Parliament by invalidating Pride's Purge.
  • The Long Parliament was recalled to action in February, 1660 and remained in service until March, 1660. All the surviving barred members of the Long Parliament were restored to their seats. The main activity of this last phase of the Long Parliament, was to prepare for their own dissolution and a regime change. They were replaced by the Convention Parliament, ending 20 years of political activity in one form or another.
    • How do you propose we disambiguate these decades of the English Parliament? Succession was by no means linear and peaceful. Dimadick (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dimadick: Thanks for the recap of the history, but it doesn't address the reason for the nomination, viz. that the parenthesised suffixes don't appear to address any ambiguity issues different to those which arise for MPs in other eras. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Category:English MPs 1640–48 might have to include both the Long Parliament and the Oxford Parliament, as they overlap. The Rump Parliament is not an entirely new Parliament, they are the remnants of the Long Parliament. That is why I included a recap of the irregular successions of 20 years. Dimadick (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Dimadick: I'm still not seeing the problem. The Oxford Parliament (1644) case is not an overlap, but a subset. It was effectively a special sitting of the Long Parliament, so if we had a category for its members it would be a non-diffusing subcat of the Category:English MPs 1640–48.
            For categorisation purposes, we don't need to concern ourselves with the details of Pride's Purge. It is simply a date which marks the end of one set of MPs and the start of another set, just like an election. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- We categorise MPs by the Parliament, not decades. Splitting the Long Parliament at Pride's Purge is sensible, but we do not need disambiguators. The right place to explain what 1648 is about is in the headnote. MPs who sat in successive Parliaments are liable have a lot of MP categories, so that we keep them as short as possible: e.g."UK MPs 1714-21". This policy is an exception to the normal practice of expanding abbreviations. The WP convention is that MPs are treated as in office until a new one is elected. Thus we have 1640 = Short Parliament; 1640-8 = Long Parliament to Pride's Purge; 1648-53 = Rump; 1653-6 1656-8 and 1659 = Protection Parliaments. This makes a rational system. I am not sure it is reasonable to split what happened next into the Rump resumed and Long Parliament resumed, as this was not the result of an election, but of the Rump (at the instigation of Monck) recalling the excluded MPs, but we can call that "1659-60", if even those excluded by Pride did not return until February 1659/60. In each case, the place for giving the name of the Parliament and other details is in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no need for an extra disambiguator. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:English MPs 1654–55 (Protectorate) to Category:English MPs 1654–55
• Category:English MPs 1656–58 (Protectorate) to Category:English MPs 1656–58
• Category:English MPs 1659 (Protectorate) to Category:English MPs 1659

Nominator's rationale: In each of these 3 cases there is no overlap in years with any other set of MPs-by-term, so the parenthesised word is not needed as a disambiguator.

Yes, this was the period of The Protectorate, when England briefly dispensed with the services of its monarch (and in particular of his head). But the category title is not the place to set out the political history of the era, any more than other categories of MP-by-term need to include a parenthesised description of the politics of their particular term. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for reasons given at length under the item above. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no need for an extra disambiguator. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2017 (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 as part of an established tree (non-admin closure). Creating a new Category:Korean War massacres sounds like a sensible idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Massacres in South Korea to Category:Massacres in Korea

Nominator's rationale: As Category:Massacres in North Korea is eliminated (see CfD) there won't be a need to keep these 15 items in a subcategory. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of Category:Massacres by country. Oculi (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as part of a by country category pattern and this would be true regardless what happens to the North Korea category. 'By country' means 'by country', not by peninsula or some other landform. Hmains (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge -- In sampling contents Frog boys belongs here, but the rest of what I saw could conveniently go into a new Category:Massacres of the Korean War. The boundary between North and South Korea was only settled at the post-war armistice. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Massacres in North Korea to Category:Massacres in Korea

Nominator's rationale: This category recently had only two items included and will soon have zero. There's no navigational purpose served here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of Category:Massacres by country. Category:Massacres in Korea should be a container category (apart from pre-1945 massacres). Oculi (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Concur re above re the 2 categories with Oculi Hugo999 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hugo999 and Oculi: So if I'm understanding you, you want to keep this category even if it's empty? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not empty; it contains a list article Hmains (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And now it has another article back, which was removed by the nominator here before making this deletion nomination. Hmains (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as part of a by country catalog pattern. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Parade High School All-Americans (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As stated below for the Walter Payton Award, being a Parade All-American is a defining characteristic of a players career and as such OCAWARD does not apply. Also, simply pointing to a policy is not sufficient rationale for nomination a category for deletion.--TM 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These people aren't defining for being high school football players at all. They have articles because they played for colleges or NFL and, in the background section, it mentions they were played for XXX High School and got an award from the magazine that is a free insert in the Sunday newspaper. (Click through some of the articles to see what I mean.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a classic case of WP:OCAWARD. No need to listify as the main article already has a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Walter Payton Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (creator). First, simply pointing to a policy is not an actual rationale for deletion. However, the Walter Payton Award is the highest award for the second level of college football in the US. It's the equivalent of winning the Heisman Trophy for the FCS. It is an award that is nationally recognized and is certainly a defining characteristic of the career of any player who receives it.--TM 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unlike the tens of thousands of Parade winners above, this award is presented sparingly and appears pretty defining for these players college careers according to the article I clicked on. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a classic case of WP:OCAWARD. No need to listify as the main article already has a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Although I'm a bit torn over this one. After reviewing WP:OCAWARD and then reviewing Wikipedia:Defining#From_Wikipedia:Categorization_.C2.A7_Defining, the analysis we should be using to determine if this is kept or deleted should be if winners of this award are regularly referred to, among reliable source, as a winner of this award when talking about such people. The problem with this here is that this is an award that is generally given to college seniors who often move on to the NFL - and once they are on an NFL team, such players are generally referred to as an "NFL player" or as a player on a particular team - this would likely apply to all college football awards, excluding perhaps the Heisman Trophy. In general there is a very short timeframe that any publication would be likely to refer to these winners as a "Walter Payton Award winner," in my view. I would liken this to Category:Maxwell Award winners - perhaps right after players win the award they will be referred to as a winner of this award, but it's short lived and it's unlikely that's how independent sources are going to refer to these people in the long run. All that being said, I would suggest that winning the Walter Payton award alone is sufficient to meet the notability requirement, and theoretically players could abandon football entirely after winning the award. In these cases, I think think that third party publications would refer to them as a "Walter Payton Award winner" when describing them, as that would be what they are most notable for. Because of this I think that this would be a defining characteristic for most of these people, had they not achieved more notable things since winning the award, and therefore I think keeping the category is warranted. VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to back up my point, I did a little searching through the category. Louis Ivory appears to be such a player who has not done anything notable since winning the award. He's mentioned as a winner in this article and this article (unsure of the reliability of the second source however, and full disclosure: I found a couple that did not reference him as having won the award as well). I believe there is sufficient evidence that this is a defining characteristic for such players. VegaDark (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sammy Baugh Trophy winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category. As far as I'm concerned, delete it. I really do not care either way. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Touchdown Club of Columbus gives out over a dozen awards and, looking at the articles, this one doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a classic case of WP:OCAWARD. No need to listify as the main article Touchdown Club of Columbus already has a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of Poland (1939–45) to Category:Poland in World War II

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, this category has a similar scope as its child category. "Country in World War II" is the usual format for all countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom The years 1939 to 1945 are defined by World War II. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.GreyShark (dibra) 19:15, 9 February 2017 (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 all --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only member of these categories and have left them empty. LA (T) @ 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Oh, by the way, I suggest deletion. *blonde moment* LA (T) @ 10:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians who read erotica
• Category:Wikipedians who read gemology
• Category:Wikipedians who read Robert Asprin
• Category:Wikipedians who read Thomas Bulfinch
• Category:Wikipedians who read Don Callander
• Category:Wikipedians who read Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire
• Category:Wikipedians who read David and Leigh Eddings
• Category:Wikipedians who read Parke Godwin
• Category:Wikipedians who read Laurie R. King
• Category:Wikipedians who read Anne McCaffrey
• Category:Wikipedians who read Wendy and Richard Pini
• Category:Wikipedians who read Robert Ripley
• Category:Wikipedians who read Tad Williams
• Category:Wikipedians who read Janny Wurts
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Apprentice Adept
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Belgariad and the Mallorean
• Category:Wikipedians who read Bio of a Space Tyrant
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Catteni series
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Elenium and the Tamuli
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Ender series
• Category:Wikipedians who read Homecoming
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Intrepid Linguist Library
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Magic Kingdom of Landover
• Category:Wikipedians who read Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn
• Category:Wikipedians who read Mode
• Category:Wikipedians who read MythAdventures
• Category:Wikipedians who read the Talents
• Category:Wikipedians who read TSR novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Buck Rogers novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Dark Sun novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Dragonlance novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Forgotten Realms novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Planescape novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Ravenloft novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Spelljammer novels
• Category:Wikipedians who read White Wolf novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Changeling: The Dreaming novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Demon: The Fallen novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Hunter: The Reckoning novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Mage: The Ascension novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Mummy: The Resurrection novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Vampire: The Masquerade novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Werewolf: The Apocalypse novels
  • Category:Wikipedians who read Wraith: The Oblivion novels
• Delete all There isn't apparently a community of Wikipedians identifying as fans of particular fiction works in these cases and empty categories serve no purpose. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - don't seem to serve any purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all even if they weren't empty. Declaring one's self as reading a particular series or author does not necessarily implicate that said person is interested in collaborating on topics relating to said series or author. Far too many Wikipedians add these types of categories just because it applies to them and not because of an interest in collaborating - the purpose for user categories in the first place as per WP:USERCAT. I suggest creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to x as a much more collaboration-oriented naming convention that will keep users out who aren't actually interested in improving the encyclopedia, while making those who place themselves in the category far more open to reaching out to someone else in the category for shared improvement of content. VegaDark (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2017 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fifth-generation jet fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not part of any current category scheme as the "generation" labeling of fighters is an ill-defined product of enthusiasts mainly used in "mines bigger than yours" arguments. By project aircraft consensus we dont normally use "generation" terminology in these articles. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think there's enough fifth-generation jet fighters out there now to justify this category. As for labeling, if you have an issue with a jet fighter being labelled as a particular generation then you should open up a discussion on the talk page of that particular jet fighter. All the articles included in this category have "fifth-generation" in the lead section. As for category scheme, I'd be happy to organize first-generation, second-generation, third-generation and fourth-generation jet fighters into categories if you give me the time to do it. GWA88 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The "fighter generations naming scheme" was recently invented by one or two aircraft manufacturers as a marketing ploy to make competitor's aircraft look obsolete. There is no reason for Wikipedia to embrace company marketing like that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Fighters keep being developed so that the generations are not obvious. Anyway this is probably essentially a US or US & allies category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2017 (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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments to Category:WikiProject assessments

Nominator's rationale: It's actually WikiProject assessments, so it's a redundant separate category. Furthermore it's not just "1.0" but simply not related to any version of Wikipedia. Fixuture (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. - jc37 08:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc37: Not sure what your point is here? I know of that page but as said the assessments don't have much to do with their initial use anymore. The page you linked just documents the historic set up of this, not its current use. --Fixuture (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2017 (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.