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. I fail to see the need for this small category. Navigation is handled in the main article and like named categories about business people are much larger where navigation in an article would be difficult. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- My first reaction was that he was an architect; and we might by a buildings by architect category, but he was a newspaper proprietor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 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:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country[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.
Nominator's rationale: Somewhere along the way, "scandal" got inserted into the by-country categories. It's unnecessary and unencyclopedic in tone. I see that several articles in this category will need renaming, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles are not necessarily about the sex abuse per se, they may be about things related to it, which is why we need the term "scandal".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But then "cases," which I see used on some categories, would be more in keeping with WP:TONE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, could you or anyone point to an example or two of an article "related to" Roman Catholic Church sex abuse that wouldn't be groupable under the target name as proposed? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country and rename child categories similarly. The history of this is very confusing because at least one of the renames of this category was done as a speedy after the main article was moved again, but the word "scandal" wasn't added; it changed back and forth between "cases" and "scandal" to whatever to reflect the name of the main article. That article is now Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases, so the "by country" category tree needs to match that. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly agree with Mangoe here, and WP:TONE. There is more clean up to be done with both main articles and categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country per Mangoe. We should try to bring discipline back to CFD to match article names, which (presumably) have evolved by editors familiar with the subject - whereas categories are very hard to rename (except for admins and other grand poobahs). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In what sense is the Roman Catholic church responsible? Are all the alleged Catholic priests? Did the assaults occur in the Catholic church? As it is now, the 'scandal' title is POV. What is the scope of this category? Is it to group priests who were convicted of sexual assualt? Then that is what the category should be retitled. "Roman Catholic priests convicted of sexual assualt." As it is it's just a hodgepodge and not an accurate representation of what the category contains. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the Canada category, all the articles are related to cases of sex abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests, during their duties as such. And bios of priests do not form the majority of such articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 30 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 to rename. delldot∇. 02:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Athletes means different things in different forms of English. In US English, at least if Category:College athletes in the United States makes any sense, and I think it does, athletes are players while sportspeople can also refer to coaches. The National Collegiate Athletic Association covers things from football to track and lots more. On the other hand, in the UK athletes and athltics are a sub-set of sports. The new name uses the UK form while disambiguating it, which should make most people happy. It also matches Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by country and some other sub-cats. How to name the various by nationality categories could be addresses seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(With regret) Support nom. In view of the brader US usage of "athlete", the parent category needs to reflect that usage. HOwever, that should NOT be a pretext for renaming European and Commonwealth categories to match. That would impose US usage inappropriately. See WP:ENGVAR. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose instead merge Category:Athletes (track and field) by nationality to Category:Athletes by nationality Remember that Track and field Olympic events are 20 (100 m, 200 m. 400 m, 800 m, 1500 m, 5000 m, 10000 m, 110 hs, 400 hs, 3000 m st, hammer, discus, javelin throw, shot put, pole vault, high, long, triple and two relays reces). Athletics Olympic events are 3 (20 km, 50 race walk, marathon), but also "cross-country athletes" (middle and long distance runners) can't included in "track & field". Sure that athlete is a sportsperson, but how would you call those who practice the sport of athletics? --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That just makes the categories ambiguous. "Athlete" is synonymous with "sportsperson". -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but an athlete is also is also a sportsperson who practices the sport of the athletics (sport) that included inside 20 events of track and field (track and field is no a sport). --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Track and field is a sport to most US users of the terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Olympics are not the only body to decide what is what. "Athletes" is an extremely ambiguous term. If we use "athlete", then this entire tree should be merged into the "sportspeople" tree, since it is a useless distinction, as athlete and sportsperson are synonyms (at the very least, in American and Canadian English) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and look for another solution: The terms are not equivalent in any engvar, as long distance runners are not part of track and field. It is also hardly just Olympics which define things that way, so do the International Association of Athletics Federations for example. Does the ambiguity about "Athlete" also apply to the word "Athletics"? --Qetuth (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Athletics can and frequently is used to mean all sports in North America -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Competitors in athletics (track and field) by nationality. There is no perfect answer here given that the North Amer. term is a misnomer of sorts, but all track and field athletes are athletics competitors and in North America a racewalker, marathon runner and even a cross-country long distance runner is considered by most, if not all, a track and field athlete. Importantly, the parent category is Category:Competitors in athleticsMayumashu (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want "competitor" and not "athlete" of course is not necessary "track and field" refers to the athletic. Because if exist "athlete" as "sportperson" don't exist "athletics" (sport) as "another thing". Could be sufficient Category:Competitors in athletics by nationality. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which will just say to American users "competitors in sports by nationality".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what American users understand when at the Olympics Games there is Athletics at the Summer Olympics. :-) John Pack Lambert in my opinion you are not yet clear that if it goes to rename this, there is another 99% of wikipedia articles which you speak "athletics" AND NOT "track and field" as a sport, that would be wrong. --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to just ignore that we have Category:Harvard Crimson athletes and hundreds of other categories that have football players as subcats. You have not yet even acknoledged that that undermines your precious athletes being some special group schema.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 3 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.
Category:Paralympic athletes of 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.
Nominator's rationale This is a local English usage issue. In the United States "athletes" is used as a synynym for sportspeople. We use it this way in lots and lots of categories like Category:Harvard Crimson athletes, Category:BYU Cougars athletes, Category:Florida Gators athletes and many many more. Interestingly enough Category:College athletes in the United States is a subcat of the sportpeople cat, because the later also includes coaches and some other non-participants in the sports. I actually made a proposal to rename those at one point to avoid confusion, but it was shot down. In this particular case the explanation sentance says "This is a list of track and field athletes of the United States who participated in the Summer Paralympics." Thus the head points us towards using the "track and field athletes" form, and it would just make things much less ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kind of bizarre that the generic parent uses US term but the US category doesn't. This should match the naming form (ie, bracketed or not) of similar cateogries and might depend on the result of the above nom. Also note unlike above nom that in this case the category is for competitors in a specific event, not just general usage, which calls the sport just "Athletics". However, the non-track-and-field parts of athletics do not appear to be included and its competitors are then subdivided into "Track athletes" and "Field athletes". --Qetuth (talk) 01:51, 29 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:16th-century Protestant Reformers and ministers[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.
upmerge as proposed. I don't see a division by century as useful. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge by century cats do not work in this case. Added by century categories would tend to collect people born or died then, who really were part of the 16th-century events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge century doesn't make sense here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 29 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per numerous precedents. Categories for the benefit of a single user or categories designed to index one editor's user-subpages are not considered valid uses of the category system and are routinely deleted. Pichpich (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not allow users to have their own categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an acceptable category use, and redundant to the prefix page. --Qetuth (talk) 01:58, 29 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete we typically require more than the standard "X songs" and "X albums" subcategories in order to maintain an eponymous category about a recording artist. Pichpich (talk) 05:25, 27 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:delete, but the category can be recreated if there is enough material for it in the future. delldot∇. 02:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Not enough material to warrant a separate category. 2012 Fast5 Netball World Series is already properly categorized as a netball competition and Fast5 is also categorized properly as a netball variant. If enough material is gathered, the category could be recreated at some point in the future. Pichpich (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems premature; not enough material currently. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom and Good here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:23, 8 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.
Category:Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Norway[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:merge as nominated, for now, to at least eliminate the duplication. User:Alansohn makes a good point about consistency. This is without prejudice to a future nomination for a rename, though, if users want to pursue the proposed alternative or another form.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Or vice versa, but one category should be enough. The latter category is more populated. Silvonen (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge In the parent Category:Foreign ministers by country, more than 100 of the 125 entries are in the format of "Category:Foreign ministers of X", and the trend should probably be to rename the outliers to fit this format, rather than trying to use the name of the parent article, which varies nation by nation as to the exact format of the governmental agency. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 27 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Currently a single entry category. I'm not sure if this can be further populated as a defining characteristic. The one article is notable as the birthplace of Gospel music. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to Category:Gospel musiconly. There is no church that is a music venue in any sense other than all of them are. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. The Gospel Lounge is a regular place of worship every Wednesday, specifically for those who work in bars and are unable to attend regular services. Pastor Carl Butler preaches and plays music, a collection is taken and all are welcome. K8 fan (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Gospel music - everywhere could be a venue for virtually any type of music - schools, stadiums, parks, buildings, cities, and it goes on and on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:03, 29 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.
