Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:White Russians[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 to Category:White Russians (movement), without creating a precedent for the sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. White Russian has several meanings, one of which is people from Belarus. (That meaning was common in the days of the Russian Empire.) This category is for people who were supporters or members of the White movement. They are most commonly referred to as "White Russians", but I think we need some sort of disambiguator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Members of the White movement to better match the title of the parent article for White movement and to more accurately reflect the description of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only issue with that name is that as far as I know, it's quite rare and unusual to describe these people in this way. It's much more common to call them White Russians (or White émigrés, if they left Russia.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That happens quite a bit though on Wikipedia, with the rare version being used for Wiki-related reasons such as WP:ENGVAR - a recent example that's cropped up in CfD lately is an article at Nitre when saltpetre/-er is much the more common name.Le Deluge (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but I see no reason to do that here, when the common name is perfectly do-able. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what should we do with categoies like Category:White Russian emigrants to the United States though. I can see Category:White Russian (movement) emigrants to the United States, but the second option would be really awkward. Another possiblitity is to merge them to Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States, or figure out some other name from those who emigrated between the fall of the Czar in early 1917 and the establishments of the Soviet Union in 1922.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be best to tackle that issue once this discussion is resolved. "White émigrés to FOO" might also work, given the article about those people is at White émigré. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But them we would disrupt the standard x emigrant to y form of the categories. I would rather lump them all under the Imperial Russian category and assume they have enough connection to Imperial Russia to count than use a non-standard descriptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, it's probably something we want to tackle after a name is settled here. What we choose might well vary considerably depending on whether we select Category:White Russians (movement) or Category:Members of the White movement. Personally, I think White Russian émigrés are sufficiently different than ordinary emigrants from the Russian Empire to warrant separate subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd not seen this discussion when I brought up the subject of the immigrants on 24 March. I think the thing to remember is that "White Russian" isn't a nationality or an ethnicity in the same way as "the standard x emigrant to y form of the categories" - in fact White Russian categories come close to a breach of WP:OC#OPINION. Some of them deserve the activist get-out, but I'm not sure that activism is relevant to emigration. I completely understand that if you are going to do an opinion-based emigration category then the White Russians would be at the front of the line for an exemption to WP:OC#OPINION, I'm just not sure that it's worth opening that can of worms even if they are sui generis to some extent. Personally I'd clamp down on a lot of the emigrants from historical entities, it just gets messy and a bit OC-ish trying to keep up with the history of the Balkans, Italy, Germany or the African colonies. Stick with the modern names of the country, then add separate categories for eg membership of the White Movement if appropriate.Le Deluge (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe; but it does have the benefit of allowing us to avoid direct categorization of many people as a "Soviet" emigrants, when those people are never described in reliable sources as "Soviet" anything and they certainly would not have self-identified as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something it can't stay where it is, since it isn't about Belorussians, or variants on the cocktail. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; Category:Members of the White movement seems to be a good variant. Other categories containing "White Russians" in their titles should probably go through CfD individually.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 5, 2013; 21:59 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:White Russian émigrés-- To me "White Russians" refers primarily to Russians who went into exile (or stayed abroad) after the 1917 revolution, becasue they were opposed to the Reds of USSR. ONe of the tragedies of 20th cnetury is that many of these (effectively stateless) people were returned to USSR at end of WWII and were sent straight to the gulags. Not all of these people were members of a political movement, merely exiled for political reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a category, not an article, the resultant category would still be confusable with Belorussians. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category includes people like Maria Bochkareva who clearly worked within the White Movement, but she died in 1920 in Russia. Thus we cannot rename it to emigres without removing articles that clearly belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to White movement. It might not be standard, but it accurately describes the contents of this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:White Russians (movement). WE could them add the parenthetical movement to subcats as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:White Russians (movement) as the best option of a set of unfortunatly and honestly bad choices - all of them have reasons to object, but this seems the least-bad of the bunch. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 13 March 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:Satellite Award winners[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I should have included this parent category in the bundle nomination of the winners in the individual award categories a month ago. The award itself has notibility issues (at least based on the issue tag on Satellite Award) and winning it is not a defining aspect of one's career. WP:OC#Award. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in general we discorage award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a rather minor award that is not a defining characteristic of those who have received the award. Alansohn (talk) 02:12, 5 February 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.

Congregational churches categories[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: keep all (i.e. do not rename or delete). There is a clear local consensus here not to rename these categories as proposed.
The question of whether we should have categories for "churches" or "church buildings" has been discussed at CFD many times over the last few years. The debates have usually been lengthy (and sometimes heated), and their outcomes have been inconsistent. Isn't it time for a WP:RFC to seek wider input on this question, and try to build a stable consensus rather than re-hashing the same debate again and again at CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly categories of NHRP (US) or Listed (UK) buildings, not congregations. As a rule, churches are not otherwise found worthy of articles. There is no system within these two projects for categorizing church buildings by denomination, but it would be obviously useful to do so. Therefore I am proposing to repurpose these categories to such a scheme, deleting the extraneous categories in the process. This is a trial run for doing this to other denominations. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have argued in the past that the vast majority of articles in these trees are about the buildings and not the congregations. I would rather think of this as a split since the proposal is simply using the bot to do the bulk move and then following up with a manual population/creation of a congregation tree as needed. I do oppose the deletion of Category:Congregational church buildings since it may be the logical top level category in this area. If there is a better choice please clue us in. It is correct for an article to be in both a building and congregation category when both are well covered in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd hope that any closing admin would read your comments to the end, there is a danger that you would be seen to be supportive of the deletion, which you're clearly not. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified proposal for retention of topmost category. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian, your statement supportive of splitting seems to indicate that your !vote is Oppose the deletion of the categories, not to Support deletion of them. --doncram 11:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the renames for the reasons stated which I agree are valid for the vast majority of the affected articles. For the cases where you have a limited number of articles that should be in two trees then the articles can be in both. It appears that most of the oppose votes are of the mind set that the buildings are not notable enough to be categorized as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although churches are notable if they are listed, they are not automatically regarded as non-notable if they are not listed. I'm worried that the proposer does not understand the difference between a church congregation and Congregational Churches, which applies to the congregations. It may be an idea to create listed building categories - but this is probably best done manually and on a case by case basis. JASpencer (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the difference, and I would invite examination of the articles in verification of the fact that they are almost all (and in the case of the American categories, exclusively) about church buildings. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator has also nominated List of Congregational churches for deletion (which should obviously be Kept). See wp:CLT for explanation how lists, categories, and navigation templates are complementary. Articles about churches are typically about either or both the church as a congregation and history that pre-dates and spans use of individual buildoings, and the church as a building. Not all U.S. churches that are notable in Wikipedia are NRHP-listed. The NRHP-listed ones are just some that are easily documented as notable so they are more fully represented (are relatively over-represented) in Wikipedia. Renaming to narrow the categories is hurtful. Let the Wikipedia grow to include other non-NRHP-listed ones; be patient, let the categories grow. No benefit to rename or to split. Why pick on Congregational religion, by the way? --doncram 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the Congregationalists simply because they were the first case I looked at. And while there is some theoretical possibility of notable congregations in unimportant buildings, I note that every Vermont article is about an NRHP listing, and it's a very safe bet that every other article in the US tree is of the same ilk. Besides, the utility of dividing the NRHP listings by denominational family (or religion) is obvious: the "religious function" categories are huge. If we did this as a split off instead of as a rename, most "denomination church" categories would disappear for lack of members. Mangoe (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not theoretical, there are notable churches of every denomination that have modern buildings, notable for their activity/size/congregations or notable for the modern (non-NRHP-eligible) architecture of their buildings. Also there were historically notable Congregational churches in Vermont, I am sure, and in other states, where there is no surviving building (and perhaps no surviving church), for which articles will eventually be created. The NRHP articles are simply among the easiest articles to start; there will be others. So what if the current population of the Vermont articles are all NRHP-listed churches; that doesn't indicate that the category should be deleted or that it should be split. --doncram 11:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IF they are created, then such a categorization could be justified. Until those articles exist, the possibility remains only a possibility. My experience with various discussions here is that parish articles do not generally survive deletion discussions; only building articles do, because architectural notability has clear, bright lines. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is true that most churches on WP are only notable for inclusion in the NHRP, but that does not change the fact that an article on X church is about the church as organization as well as its building. Vegas's proposal to split building and church congregation articles is unworkable because there is no reason to have separate articles for churches as organizations from churches as buildings. The articles which are allegedly only about church buildings include in their scope the congregation which built and worship(ed) there, and at some point information about the church as organization may be added there. --JFH (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did I say that we should have two articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • By separate articles I meant that having building and congregation categories would mean we'd have to decide whether an article is about a building or a congregation, so separate types of articles. I'm saying that's not necessary because the articles are almost always going to include both things in their scope, even if they currently only include information about one thing. --JFH (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As long as both are discussed in the article, if can be categorized as both. If an article only includes one of these in its current state, then it should only be in one category and not both. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question if a building is no longer used as a congregational church, but is now say a United Reform Church, should the article even be in this category? Another article I found was on a non-denominational cemetary chapel. Not all chapels have a functional and denominated religious organization behind them. Also, some articles are entirely about the buildings and tell us nothing of any organization that may use the building.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a number of buildings with multiple uses. As such, they can be in multiple categories. I found in going through thousands of these articles that it is not uncommon for religious building articles to not specify the denomination that worships there. Likewise for others it is clear that it is non denomination and used by multiple religions. Personally on building articles, it is reasonable to list the denomination that built the structure. It is also reasonable to list later denominations that have used the building. This would be the same as listing a second use for a religious building when it is converted to another use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First Congregational Church (Burlington, Iowa) is clearly about the organization, it tells us when the organization was formed but not when the building was built. Building categories may be useful, but renaming the current ones to such would just create problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you would not have an objection to using a building category as appropriate? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Congregational church buildings; Delete Category:Congregational churches; Rename Category:Congregational churches in Iowa to Category:Congregational Christian churches in Iowa (which should include the churches in Burlington and Nashua, but not the one in Sioux City); Rename Category:Congregational churches in Vermont to Category:Congregational church buildings in Vermont; Rename Category:Congregational churches in the United States to Category:Congregational church buildings in the United States; Create Category:Congregational Christian churches in the United States and Category:Congregational Christian churches as containers for that Iowa category and any other Congregational Christian churches that are lurking in the corners of Wikipedia.
My rationale: The denominational term "Congregational" lacks clear meaning (as I indicated in my comments at the AFD for List of Congregational churches), because of mergers and splits. Accordingly, churches in this category should be slotted in a denominational category that identifies a more specific denominational affiliation. The correct denominational categorization for many of the U.S. churches formerly considered Congregational is Category:United Church of Christ churches. I propose the new Category:Congregational Christian churches for churches (such as two churches in Iowa) that belong to the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches. Additionally, though, because there are architectural similarities in many of the historic buildings identified as "Congregational", Category:Congregational church buildings has merit as a separate building-focused category. Most of the articles in this category are focused on the church buildings, so almost all could be slotted in that category (or subcats); many also could go into a churches-by-denomination category, if the actual denomination can be determined. For the U.S. church buildings, I oppose the use of "National Register of Historic Places" in the category name, largely because I've worked on some articles for notable Congregational church buildings that aren't listed (or aren't individually listed) on the National Register (for example, First Congregational Church of Litchfield and Old Lyme Congregational Church). I haven't looked carefully enough at the UK category to form a strong opinion, but for consistency with the U.S. category structure I favor, I'd recommend renaming it to Category:Congregational church buildings in the United Kingdom. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for articles about the churches as churches. The creation of a parallel category for those few articles that are solely about the buildings does not require a CfD. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it happens, almost all of the articles in these categories are exclusively about the buildings. Most of them are stubs that indicate little more than the fact that the named church is listed on the National Register. The three-article Iowa category is an exception to that generalization. Those two Connecticut church articles (i.e., Litchfield and Old Lyme) that I linked in my comment haven't ever been included in this category, but they are properly included in Category:United Church of Christ churches in Connecticut because they are UCC congregations. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Church articles are invariably about the congregations that are housed, or were housed, in the building. Some of the articles are stubs waiting for their fuller stories to be told. It is rather easy to get the basic information about a church building listed on the NRHP in the US (name, date built, architectural style, architect and/or builder), so many editors begin and end their articles at that point. In Iowa, for example, these articles can tell the larger story about Euro-American immigration into the Midwest. Congregational churches tell the story, for the most part, about New Englanders just as the Catholic churches tell the stories of the Irish and Germans, the Lutherans about Germans and Scandinavians, Episcopalians and Methodist about people from the eastern and southern US. These are generalizations and I'm not limiting these immigrant groups to these denominations. Davenport, Iowa had a German Congregational church and a German Methodist church, so the congregation tells the story about the building. Also, because the Congregational Church is still in existence it is a living reality and not an historical curiosity. The choice of architectural style for the building also says something about the congregation and the era that it was built. There are, of course, church buildings where the denomination that built the building no longer occupies it. This may be a bigger problem for naming the article rather than how to categorize it. The Sioux City, Iowa church building is no longer a Congregational church and should not be in the category. The Burlington and Nashua church buildings are still Congregational churches and they belong in the category as it currently exists. Other Congregational church buildings in Iowa, such as First Congregational in Iowa City, are now UCC congregations and they are listed in that category for Iowa. The ancient Christian Church referred to its buildings, which we call churches, as the domus ecclesia, the house of the church. The church is the people, the building houses the church. Without the church, the people, the building is just a building (architecturally significant as it may be). It is the people that give the buildings their reason for existing, and they should not be divorced from that reality. Farragutful (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ideally, what you say would be true. However, the reality is that most of the articles in the U.S. categories discussed here are short stubs about buildings (e.g., First Congregational Church and Meetinghouse), with no information about the churches that occupied those buildings. Category:Congregational churches in Iowa is an exception in that the articles are fairly substantial; almost all of the other articles in these categories are still minimal stubs that are solely about buildings. This is why I propose renaming the Iowa category as a category for Congregational Christian churches in Iowa. Many other "Congregational" churches that are now affiliated with the United Church of Christ are now found in categories like Category:United Church of Christ churches in Connecticut and Category:United Church of Christ churches in Iowa; my proposal would give similar treatment to Congregational Christian churches, while retaining a separate category for "Congregational" church buildings (including those of churches whose actual denominational affiliation is not yet determined). --Orlady (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely certain of the protocol here, however, I'll write this here and whatever comes of it, so be it. I fully agree that the Iowa category should be changed to "Congregational Christian churches in Iowa." It is more accurate than the current title and therefore makes complete sense. I also thinks this makes sense for any other states as well. Those articles can be developed to add the additional information about the congregations. Farragutful (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An article about a church building that doesn't discuss the congregation is woefully short of useful information; we should expect articles to cover both and thus put these articles into categories that are menat for both. This problem should be blamed on those who create useless substubs, not on the current collection of categories. The nominator's first sentence is a good reason not to get rid of current categories — because "These are mostly categories of NHRP (US) or Listed (UK) buildings, not congregations", where will you put the exceptions? Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orlady asks me for clarification; sorry for being unclear. Basically, I'm saying "What we have right now is better than anything else that's been proposed, so let's leave everything where it is right now". Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, the fact is that most of these articles don't talk much about the congregation because most of the information about these buildings comes from NHRP nominations, which tend to only care about what it took to get the building constructed. If one is lucky there may be some data on a parish website with a list of rectors/pastors or the like, but by and large there's precious little to work with. There's little notable in the history of most congregations; the exceptions tend to be places like Washington National Cathedral whose NHRP listing is incidental to the history of the place; but these are very few and far between. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Congregational churches has been closed with "No consensus" decision that keeps the list-article. As several persons have pointed out, the wp:CLT guideline supports having corresponding list-articles and categories. Since the list-article is kept, it makes sense to keep the corresponding category. I think this CFD is ready to be closed with KEEP decision. --doncram 17:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That "no consensus" closure was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for deleting the lists are not strongly related to the reasons for renaming these categories, even though they address the same kinds of articles. These categories remain, for the most part, about buildings, and doncram, given that that the lists you assembled are focused on buildings (since they relate to NHRP listings) I could for the sake of wasting more time on it renominate the lists for renaming to lists of buildings, to which all the same complaints I made the first time around would still apply. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there were already a couple of other churches in these categories that aren't listed on the National Register. Additionally, there are several existing articles about current or former Congregational churches that aren't on the National Register and aren't on Doncram's list or in his categories. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • update 3 on Iowa. The original specific proposal about renaming the Iowa Congregational churches in Iowa category also does not work, because there is at least one non-NRHP-listed one among the 8 notable Iowa Congregational churches now covered in the corresponding List of Congregational churches and included in the category. I just added Iowa churches to the List and/or to the category so there are 8 now, rather than just 3 showing in the category before. And a subsequent specific proposal above to narrow the Iowa category also does not work, i think: i think the proposal was to revise the Iowa category to make it specifically about only UCC churches in Iowa, but there is a one that is specifically NOT a UCC church, that voted NOT to join the UCC, and which is NRHP-listed and wikipedia-notable. --doncram 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some confusion here. At the time that this discussion started and also when I suggested renaming the Iowa category to Category:Congregational Christian churches in Iowa, the category did not contain ANY United Church of Christ (UCC) churches. It contained three churches; two are affiliated with the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, and the third is a church building that is now used by a Pentecostal congregation. There was, appropriately, a distinct and separate category for UCC churches in Iowa. Now Doncram has inserted all of the UCC churches into the Congregational churches category (in addition to the UCC category). Notwithstanding the fact that he has not put another Iowa Congregational church building into this category (presumably because the name of the church doesn't include the word "Congregational"), Doncram's categorization decision underlines my perception that the categories he has built -- and that are under discussion here -- are categories for church buildings that were built as Congregational churches. Accordingly, the best name for these categories is "Congregational church buildings". Once the categories are renamed, additional categorization may be needed to correctly classify the various churches by denomination. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. If you know about a church that should be in the Congregational churches in Iowa category, put it there. If you are intending to be funny or sarcastic or critical or whatever, I don't get it. Update: I just added, as you should have, the First Congregational Church (Davenport, Iowa) a.k.a. First Bible Missionary Church one, into the Iowa Congregational churches category. I don't enjoy any of this interaction, and wish that someone would close this whole proposal as obviously invalid. --doncram 02:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • note on UK and the general list To be clear, not all the United Kingdom congregational churches are Listed buildings (e.g. not the Finsbury Chapel), and not all the United States ones are NRHP-listed (e.g., not The Little Brown Church. So the original proposals don't work.

I am sure several participants here are well-meaning in trying to make category names be descriptive. But the proposals to narrow categories so that their titles are more fully descriptive of the current contents of the category but allowing for no other types, seems to me not helpful. Too-narrow categories are not robust to the addition of new articles (or the finding of already-existing Wikipedia articles) that fit the broader category but not the too-narrow one. And, I further think there's no need to split a pretty small category such as Iowa congregational churches into smaller categories of NRHP ones vs. non-NRHP ones, and UCC vs. non-UCC ones, when there are only 8 churches in the Iowa category. --doncram 21:03, 23 February 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:American actors of Chinese descent[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: administrative close. The ongoing discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural point This category already had another nomination for upmerging. It seems irregular to open a second nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 4 February 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:Northern Ireland stage actors[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 all. The question of the stage actor categories needs to be discussed in a discussion about Category:Stage actors, not about the category here in the original nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. This would fit speedy criterion C2C, except that a perverse decision at CFD 2009 October 9 ignored the convention set in 2009 January 7 and CfD 2009 July 13 upheld at every other CFD since then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per everything else in Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation (except Category:Northern Irish nurses and a few 'in' rather than 'from'). Oculi (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. However, I am dubious about having a category for "stage actors" at all, because it is the nature of this overcroweded profession that many actors will take any work offered, so that they may do a run as a stage actor, then do a film and then appear in a TV drama. Another difficulty with some of these is whether they refer to a person working in Northern Ireland or of that ethnic origin (but working elsewhere). Perhpas an "in" format would be better than "from". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been busying myself with recategorising a few thousand articles into Category:Actesses and is subcats, I share those concerns about the merits of categorising actors by medium. But if that concern is to be pursued, it requires a separate group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 11 February 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:American female pornographic film actors)[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, could have probably been a speedy under CSD R3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an uncontroversial cleanup. The right parenthesis appears to be a typo, and since there are no articles in the category, there's really no need for debate. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:39, 6 February 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:Danish Christian 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.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the rest of the hierarchy. Category only has two members (one of which I've just added). PamD 09:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Thanks for pointing this out. Because Category:Danish Christian ministers is currently a subcategory of Category:Christian clergy by nationality I had not realised there was this distinction. I now see it is also a subcat of Category:Christian ministers by nationality.
  • Withdraw nomination per the above - I'll create the new required category, and remove the existing one from its wrong place in the hierarchy. Thanks. PamD 08:09, 5 February 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:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco, California[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - I started Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco, California without realizing the category was at the "county" designation, but most people call it "San Francisco" anyway and the new cat name can be used to categorize all Bay Area request photos - Also it matches Category:Wikipedians in San Francisco, California - WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SF County should very rarely be used. excellent accident. if merged, make sure all the supporting comments found at the county cat are moved over.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the county limits of San Francisco, and the City limits of San Francisco are the same, so there really is no difference that I am aware of (see the city/county government website).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:37, 22 February 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:Anna Akhmatova Museums[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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALLCAT, only one page in the category. Doesn't need to be merged to the other parent categories, as article is already in them. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:17, 4 February 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:1990s television series[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: procedural close. This is not a proposal to delete/rename/split/merge the category, so it doesn't belong at CFD. The nominator may want to take up the suggestion of asking the question at Wikipedia talk:Categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 9 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_4&oldid=1127488305"