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. This matches the naming convention of most members of the parent category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for the dsiambiguator because there isn't another Calderdale that this could be confused with. Also it is technically incorrect because it is a Borough and not a District. Green Giant (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One bad decision should not be used as a precedent for another. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Sheffield (district) so the term is meaningless. There is no need for Stocksbridge to be sub-catted under Sheffield at all as it can go quite happily under South Yorkshire. (The whole 'district' scheme is misconceived and unnecessary.) Oculi (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, Sheffield is the name of is a local govt district, so the term is not meaningless. If you dislike the wider practice of categorising people by local govt district, then you should make a group nomination to upmerge the first-level subcats of Category:People by district in England. In the meantime, Sheffield is an anomaly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point doesn't really apply to Calderdale, there isn't a town called Calderdale to confuse with. Secondly the term "dale" usually refers to the upper reaches of the rivers, so anyone living further down the valley such as Dewsbury or Wakefield is not likely to consider themselves as living in the "dale". Thirdly I should have been clearer about boroughs and dsitricts but your assertion about Calderdale being a metropolitan borough chimes with my assertion that it should not be mixed in with (non-metropolitan) districts. Green Giant (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:People from Calderdale (borough). Calderdale is more extentive than the borough that takes its name from being on the headwaters of the river Calder. The difference from some of the other cases is that Barnsley toown is only part of the district. Conversely, the ancient parish of Sheffield covered the majoirty of the present city. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The convention of Category:People by district in England is to use the "district" disambiguator even for the districts which have borough status. The convention is not universally applied, but surely it should be standardised one way or the other rather than making piecemeal changes? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source of this convention about using (district), because I can see at least 40 categories in Category:People by district in England that do not use that disambiguator. The corresponding talkpage has a single comment by MRSC from 2009, but I can't see if any discussion took place or whether it is just that user's preference. Green Giant (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conventions can arise either by explicit decisions or by established usage. In this case, it's established usage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 20 September 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:People from Mercer Island, Washington[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: Per WP:SMALLCAT Has only two entries ...William 22:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now has ten or more. Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal Can an administrator please close this CFD as keep?...William 19:52, 17 September 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. Category is now empty.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simply existing for one year only is neither a "genre" nor "type." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below). I'm going through all 1000+ literary award articles on Wikipedia and properly categorizing. There is a type of literary award that is only presented once, ever. They need a category to distinguish. It is a "type" of award, as opposed to an annual award. There are not many of them, so it's no an issue of being too broadly defined, but there are enough to keep track of as distinct from awards given out on a regular basis. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - give the editor a chance to populate the category; nominating a category within three hours of creation is a little hasty. Review in a fortnight and nominate again if still underpopulated. Green Giant (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination was not based on its size. I do agree now that one-time-only awards could be a distinct type. I'm prepared to withdraw this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep for now. Being a one-off seems to me to be a defining characteristic of these awards, and so long as there are sufficient articles to populate the category, it should stay. It currently contains only 3 articles and a redirect, but the category is only a few hours old. Give it a little more time :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I initially created this cat and voted keep above, I have since discovered another existing category Category:Top book lists. I think this is a better solution. It's populated with the same types of articles this cat includes. An argument could be made there are other one-time literary awards that are not of the 'top book' variety, but I suspect they are so unusual/rare it may not be worth categorizing - we can deal with it later. If there is no objection I will empty out the 'single occurrence' category into the 'top book lists', except for the one redirect which doesn't really need a category since it was just an award that was canceled after one year (it wasn't intentionally a single occurrence). Green Cardamom (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic provide by the creator of this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 22 September 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. Note that the categories were emptied out of process during the deletion discussion. The BushrangerOne ping only 22:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. While I've managed to add a 2nd article to this category, there are not enough notable awards presented by the city of Ottawa -- or definingly attached to it -- to merit this offshoot category. Awards by city is not an established category structure and I haven't been able to find any counterparts, even for much larger cities, that would suggest we make an exception to SMALLCAT in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed a Toronto category has been created as well, and have added it to this nom. Though a much larger city with a greater catchment of awards, I'm sure, the same logic applies, I believe. If kept, we'd set a precedent for awards by city around the world, and there would I think be inevitable problems with national or international awards presented in a city being added to these categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDELETE (changed vote, see reason in new vote below). It's not for "awards by a city", but awards defined by a region. There are many such awards in every major city on the planet. We need a place and way to distinguish and track regional awards beyond the state or provincial level. For example, how many literature awards are there for New York City authors/books? I bet quite a few, though no one has yet categorized them. Is there no place on Wikipedia for such a categorization? New York City is bigger than many US states, and culturally more significant. Ottawa is the capital of Canada. Toronto is Canada's largest city. They are not small defined regions. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just a question of "categorizing them." It's a question of how many municipal awards are going to be notable enough by our standards, especially if we drill down to cities as small as Ottawa (and perhaps beyond). I appreciate your zeal but I am not sold on the assertion that we need awards categories to go down to city-defined levels, esp. given what this would mean globally in terms of overcategorization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just going through the literary awards, there are two for Ottawa. If we looked at all the Canadian awards, not just literary, how many are specific to Ottawa? Don't know how to check, but I bet a bunch more. I agree not every city on the planet should have its own awards category! But Ottawa is the capital of Canada and serves many official functions. Toronto is the largest city of Canada. Montreal and some other big Canadian cities that are cultural centers likewise would benefit. If you rejected all such city level awards categories, there would be no place on Wikipedia for "New York City awards" (of any type!), which seems odd, NYC is a global cultural center. If you want to limit it with some rules of thumb about capitals and city sizes or size of category. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point for every award we would have to create a ton of city-level categories which would be overcategorization. My thinking was these categories wouldn't be used that way, but for regional awards, Toronto Book Awards is a regional award, presented annually by the city of Toronto to the author of the year's best fiction or non-fiction book or books that are evocative of Toronto. An award specific to Toronto. It fits nicely in the Category:Culture of Toronto. Do you have another suggestion how to deal with regional awards? One idea is call it Category:Toronto culture awards to clarify it's not meant for Toronto-based awards. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are category descriptions indicating that this a tree for awards that are for people/things that are from/about to the city, as opposed to just simply handed out there, I think your idea could work. It just threw me a little when I saw Ottawa singled out 1st, I guess. But major urban centres are centres of culture and what you're proposing could work. I'm ready withdraw this nomination, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Shawn. For the most part, even prizes awarded locally have a non-local scope and city-level categories would probably end up ghettoizing awards in subcategories where readers can't find them. For exceptions like the Toronto Book Awards, there's nothing wrong with categorizing them directly in Category:Culture of Toronto (in addition to the awards-related categories). Actually, I think this solution addresses at least partially the concerns raised by Green Cardamom. Pichpich (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have decided to go with using the "Culture of .." category and forgo making separate regional Award's categories. I may yet create some for large cities like NYC if I see there are 5+ existing articles that could populate it. However for these Ontario cities there are not enough to justify. Thanks to Shawn in Montreal for seeing the problem and stepping through the logic. I think this CfD can be speedy closed now. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 23 September 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: The word "results" should be changed to "result" in these categories, to conform with the standard format. Gabbe (talk) 11:39, 15 September 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: I don't see any purpose for this largely neglected category. University and college buildings have their own tree, as do school buildings by year of completion, and even educational buildings. How is an "academic building" distinct? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. I think that it might be useful to keep this as a {{container category}}, functioning as a parent for school buildings, university/college buildings etc. However, I am not sure what else could go in there apart from those two category trees ... and if there is nothing else, it'd be a bit pointless. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 15 September 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.
