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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One song and one album is not enough for an eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough here to justify having the eponymous category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2012 (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:Authors writing in dialects from England[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:delete. delldot∇. 06:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is to be categorized here? Authors writing in non-RP dialects? A few words of Cockney slang in one work get one categorized here? Let's say what we mean and mean what we say, but for the life of me I'm not sure that there's something here that can be kept. Carlossuarez46l (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that this is named in a way that we can use in in any coherent manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2012 (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 both. The decision to split into buildings and congregations will have to be dealt with separately, I don't see enough discussion of it here. delldot∇. 02:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the nom makes perfect sense, unlike the present category set-up (where England is considered to be in Europe but Scotland is not). Oculi (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned in several discussions, these articles are not only about buildings, but also the congregations which use the buildings. A quick read of practically any article in these cats should make that clear. --JFHutson (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the first one I looked at only discusses the building! In the US, the vast majority of church articles are only about the building, other not even giving a clue as to the denomination that uses it. In the UK, there seems to be a better balance with more about the congregation. So my leaning here would be to support the idea of JPL. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a significant loss of information, as the non-Scottish churches are currently separated from the Scottish churches. --JFHutson (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the second to Category:Church of Scotland churches outside Scotland and merge in the English category. This might bring in churches in Africa founded by Scottish missions, but I suspect they will have called themselves Presbyterian. Keep the first, that they are in Scotland would be assumed by default. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption that all Church of Scotland churches are in Scotland would be an incorrect one, and the categorization tree shouldn't support it. --JFHutson (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and split. I will not oppose the proposal since it makes sense without addressing the issue of what is contained in the categories. However, once this is renamed, the categories should be split into one for buildings and another for congregations understanding that some articles will be in both and others will be in only one. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2012 (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:Protestant church buildings and congregations by century established[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:rename. delldot∇. 06:36, 7 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These two categories share some of the same pages, and seem to describe the same set of entities: different governments in the history of New Zealand. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:32, 21 December 2012 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale I actually at first considered renaming this to category Category:Estonia Governorate establishments in 1911. This might be workable, except there is only one entry in the category, there were two others that were things established in other Governorates and thus clearly misidentified as being Estonia. It does not seem really worth it to have a category for just one tyhing, so merging seem more worth while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This might work if we could actually get people to use it in that manner. Fram has shown total disregard for what the boundaries of Estonia were in 1911 in applying this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and add as subcat (if not done already). No reason to merge, this isn't only part of what Russia was then, but also of what Estonia was in history (whether independent or as part of a larger territory). Merging this only keeps half of the information, and doesn't help anyone. Fram (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that onbe of the things removed from this cat was the Eesti Skautide Ühing, the "Estonian Scout Association", wich was according to the nomination " clearly misidentified as being Estonia". YMMV. Fram (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first scouting troop is not organized until 1912 in the area, and that troop was not within the boundaries of what was then Estonia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On doing an indepth reading of the article, I was able to determine that it is not until 1921 that something that can be seen as equivalent to Eesti Skautide Ühing was even formed. There may have been scouts in what would later be Estonia as early as 1911, but there was no Estonian Scouting Organization until there was an independent Estonia. The Estonian Scouting Organization was clearly not formed in Estonia in 1911, because it was at earliest not formed until 1921. The connectivity of the present organiztion with the formation of 1921 may or may not even be clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fram is just plain misusing this category. Putting KS Võitleja Narva does not work, because in 1911 Narva was part of the St. Petersberg Governorate and clerly not part of Estnonia at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But prune. If the problem is Fram misusing the category, then the solution is simple, take the stuff out of the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is that the current category does not link to Estonia Governorate as the place indicated, which means it does not quickly identify the geography of the time involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is one of those categories that will cause some confusion. We can keep it and parent it with Russia (as it was part thereof in 1911), or Rename it to the Guberniya (which it was in 1911), or just merge it out of existence. I'm ambivalent, because we do have state articles in the US for states which were never independent (Illinois, e.g.), so let's see whether that works for Russia too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If Estonia existed as a province before independence, I see no reason why we cannot have a categoryfor that. However, I am far from sure of the merits of these miniscule "establishment" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well one problem is that the current category links to the article on Estonia in its header, while the boundaries of the Estonia Governorate which was the polity that existed in 1911 had different boundaries. I think at least we should rename even if it is worth having the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this is a veritable mess. We currently have nominations about the Pakistan and Turkey cats that pre-date the formations of those countries. Poland is a bit more tricky, and I am not feeling up to nominating it. However we did upmerge a Syria category into an Ottoman Empire, and a Czech Republic cat into an Austria-Hungary cat, so I guess I will have to do some more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 2 January 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 the first and rename the second as suggested by nom. delldot∇. 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename per nom. There is no reason to do the by location categories when the only thing involved is countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2012 (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. delldot∇. 00:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCAT#SMALL. Contains only four entries, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category already has an adequate number of articles to serve as an effective aid to navigation. There are HeathcliffGarfield books numbering into the hundreds, any of which could be a prospective topic for a future article that would serve to expand the content of this category, as well as other ancillary spinoffs for which articles could be created. Alansohn (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Garfield? This is the Heathcliff category, not Garfield. Why did you bring up Garfield? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was late at night and aren't they the same anyway? Corrected to use intended orange cartoon feline. This search, which lists as many as 150 paperback nooks, was the one I was referencing. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is too small to be worthwhile as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very old popular comic, therefore likely to have expansion. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Expansion is quite possible, and four articles, plus media files, is enough anyway. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:11, 1 January 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I can't see any significance to this intersection. The two articles are already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Twin people and Category:Writers, so no merge would be necessary. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I believe the category isn't meant to be the intersection Twins/Writers. I think the intent was "twins who are both writers" which fails as a category unlikely to grow beyond the current pair and as a category based on trivia. Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. --Qetuth (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (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.
