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.
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.
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 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]
Keep or ALT-2. Note: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/CategoriesAircraft 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]
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]
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.
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: 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 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.
