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 and create containers as appropriate. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy on grounds of changing a topic category to a set category, so moved to full discussion. Contents of the category and the definition of the category itself are "inductees to the USHHoF", and the other subcats of Category:Hall of fame inductees are "Foo inductees", so... Rename as nominator. The BushrangerOne ping only 23:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but they shouldn't be. Their existence is one of the reasons that I suggested a single set category, Category:Ice hockey hall of fame inductees, as a possible alternative to multiple lightly populated topic categories for each hall of fame. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose a single Category:Ice hockey hall of fame inductees, as that partially defeats the purpose, IMHO, and also means that Joe Schmoe who got inducted into the Dogpatch Frozen Pucks Hall of Fame qualifies for the category. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Black Falcon. Lots of work need to be done here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we generally discorage categorizing by being given a specific award or honor, which is what this seems to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a parent category and Create a new subcat for the inductees. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Breaking out the inductees would leave this cat with only 1 or 2 entries and no hope for expansion. While we can also figure out how to organize the containers, it is clear both that this category needs renaming, and that there is no real value in splitting it. Resolute 19:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is an set category masquerading as a topic category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:27, 2 August 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: This category, for people honored in the Walhalla memorial, reflects a characteristic that is not defining for most of the people who are categorized.
The Walhalla memorial was completed in the mid-19th century and honors giants of German(ic) history from the past two millenia. While it may or may not be a defining honor for those who lived and died after its construction, it is by no means defining for people such as Arminius (died 21); Alaric I, King of the Visigoths (died 410); Theodoric the Great (died 526); Alboin, King of the Lombards (died 572); Charlemagne (died 814); Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (died 899); Johannes Gutenberg (died 1468); Nicolaus Copernicus (died 1543); Martin Luther (died 1546); Johannes Kepler (died 1630); Peter Paul Rubens (died 1640); Charles X Gustav, King of Sweden (died 1660); Frederick the Great (died 1786); and Holy Roman EmperorsArnulf of Carinthia (died 899), Otto I (died 973), Conrad II (died 1039), Henry III (died 1056), Frederick I (died 1190), Frederick II (died 1250), Maximilian I (died 1519), and Charles V (died 1558). These people and most others on the list are remembered as artists, innovators, philosophers, scientists, generals, kings, and emperors, who shaped the course of European and world history, and not as a result of any honor, no matter how prestigious, bestowed upon them centuries after their deaths.
The main article contains a full, detailed list, and this is a much more suitable method than a category of storing this information. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list is more appropriate for this material, because it is non-defining. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, since we've got a list already that covers this information. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 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 per Black Falcon, and possibly purge. There seems to be both a desire to keep the content and a willingness to change the category names to match the surrounding categories, which may result in some films needing to leave the category tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Films do not have religions. There is no objective standard to determine whether a film is sufficiently "Christian" or "Jewish" or whatever to go in the category. For instance Torch Song Trilogy (film) is included as a Jewish film but other than a few seconds of a character's reciting kaddish for his dead lover no character's Judaism figures into the film at all. If a film truly deals with the intersection of a religion and homosexuality it can be included the appropriate sub-category of Category:Homosexuality and religion. Also nominated are the subcategories Category:Christian LGBT-related films, Category:Jewish LGBT-related films and Category:Muslim LGBT-related films68.190.166.40 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a very convincing proposal is made to delete the entire tree of films and religion. I see no reason to single out LGBT films, and the intersection is certainly encyclopedic. The "films do not have religions" issue should be addressed by a rename proposal, and films that do not belong should simply be removed, rather than being used as an excuse to delete good categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or rename preposition) as per roscelese. There are lots of LGBT-related films relating to religion, exploring the intersection of LGBT issues and a particular religion. As for the "films don't have religion" argument, maybe you just want to propose a change in preposition -- from "by" to "about" as in the main category tree. --Lquilter (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
split/rename/? There seem to be two if not three quite distinct categories here: one set of films which specifically deal with homosexuality and religion as a primary subject (most of which are documentaries), and others where either religion is the main theme and homosexuality enters as a complication, or where homosexuality is the main theme and religion is a side issue. None of members of the existing Christian subcategory are Christian films per se; they are all secular films with religious and homosexual themes. A more accurate name would therefore be Category:Films with Christian and LGBT themes. The phrase "LGBT-related" is weaselly in context, tending to suggest that any film with a priest and Rock Hudson in it would qualify. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename Definitely a notable intersection of two major facets of a human being, their sexuality/gender and their spiritual/religious life. The two often being in conflict with conservative religious traditions. Insomesia (talk) 08:34, 6 August 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, but renominate the entire set of Category:American media by state subcategories. This is just to align the New Jersey category with the others in the category, where it indeed does stick out like a sore thumb. The entire set of state categories should be nominated for renaming, where the discussion can center on whether any of them have the right name. This is only to avoid the problem that Bushranger describes, where if the rename doesn't pass, we're not back here again discussing this outlier.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was renamed out of process last year. I undid the manual rename, but was reverted as creating a "pointless circular redirect." Rename to return the category to its original name and to align it with the other members of Category:American media by state (from which it has been inexplicably removed). - Eureka Lott 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nom is right that this one is the exception in Category:American media by state, but that's because it it is only named in accordance with wider convention of "Foo in State". The other states media categories should be renamed to this format. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per BHG. Let's rename the rest of them. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose follows the example of Category:Communications in New Jersey. The x in y form here makes the meaning clear and is the better form. This should stay, while the other media cats should be renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: which naming convention we use doesn't matter to me, but it's silly to have one category that doesn't align with the others. Any of you are welcome to nominate the other 49 categories, but I don't have time to do that. - Eureka Lott 01:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for now. While the oppose !voters do have a point, the fact is that (a) right now, this category stands out like a sore thumb in its tree, which gives it an uncyclopedic and unprofessional appearance, and (b) assuming that a CfD to change the rest to the X of Y format would succeed is WP:CRYSTAL. Best to go ahead and rename this one to the current standard of this tree, and then nominate the entire tree for renaming to the X of Y format. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in concurrence w/ reasoning above. The subtle difference between NJ media and media in NJ makes the latter more appropriate as parental cat. (Besides, making this wrong doesn't make the others right or more encyclopedic.)
No, but it avoids having to renominate it later if the other categories don't pass renaming. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was renamed as part of a group nomination of city categories in 2008. The change was made, but it didn't achieve strong consensus. - Eureka Lott 15:04, 3 August 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: Okay, what on Earth is this, and why has it been here since 2007? There is no article for Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme, so my best guess is this is an article that got created in category space, so it needs moving, and maybe should or should not continue as a category. Courcelles 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's a misplaced article, it's unreferenced, and I have looked without success for sources. The category creator has been blocked, and the articles under "see also" were deleted at AFDs. – FayenaticLondon 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably could be speedied. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be an article masquarading as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 29 July 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: This category contains both TV shows and films, and we normally split those. The shows seem all done by the Television Productions studio, while the films are just attributed to Allen, as far as I can tell. This category is populated by a template which will have to be manually broken up.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have these cats been discussed before? This seems incredibly familiar. - jc37 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, so much for my memory, none of this turns out to have much to do with this nom, except that it does show precedent for such splitting (Mark VII Limited being one example). - jc37 05:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and prior discussions. - jc37 05:52, 3 August 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:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:20, 11 August 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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 29 July 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. This seems to be a rather arbitrary set of inclusion criteria and is likely not defining. What do buildings have in common with organizations? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is OCAT via shared names. Oculi (talk) 09:17, 30 July 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: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town has the population of 158 and the category has just two entries. ...William 00:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT which states "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which this is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The scheme of people by location. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. 'People by location' is not an accepted scheme, being far too vague. Oculi (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are plenty of precedents to upmerge categories for small places. – FayenaticLondon 20:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unless more notable people turn up as being from Sharon KA. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge there has developed a consensus that we do not need to categorize people from every possible place. The agreement seems to be we do by county, and subdivide from there if a specific location has a noticable number of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 29 July 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: per WP:SMALLCAT. Town has a population of less than 1,000. Little chance for growth. ...William 00:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT which states "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which this is. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What scheme?...William 11:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The scheme of people by location. Lugnuts (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization of where people are from is done by county unless the town or city a person is from has enough notable people to justify its own category. Two isn't enough....William 13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me the policy that states that? Lugnuts (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAIL. Sorry, I don't see the policy that relates to this issue about how many entries a location category should have so it can be created. Try again. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy. There is WP:CONSENSUS on this manner through many CfDs. The by-county categories are part of an established scheme per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption. The by-city categories are not. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think keep would be best, since the county's other incorporated town has its own category and keeping Crawford's category just seems more organized. But then again, I'm the one who created the category in the first place. Chevsapher (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Two is an insufficient number for a small town to have its own category per the consensus of many CfDs. - The BushrangerOne ping only 17:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. If you want to save the category, you'll have to find more notable people. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the consensus is that two people is not enough to create a seperate distinction, at least where there is a county to put the people in. There is no clear indication what the actual minimum is and how the total number of people from the county works into the equation, but it seems clear we will not keep categories from a place in a county with just two people in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 29 July 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.
