Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2012[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Nominator's rationale: Category is time-sensitive and now outdated. All stations in category have opened and should be categorized as such. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
broader question - do we really need to sort these by year? it seems a bit crystal-ball-ish. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question do we know that all these stations opened as scheduled?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename/merge per Vegaswikian1. Delays are common and there aren't so many new stations being built that we need to break them out by year. Personally I would prefer Category:Railway stations being constructed with appropriate pruning given that many station proposals come to naught because the associated line is never built. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete. Either the stations opened and will have moved to Stations opened in 2012 or they were delayed and should be in the equivalent 2013 category; or they offend WP:CRYSTAL, being projects that never got under way, having never been funded, and the articles should never have eben created. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming they they have not been cancelled or are being completed this year is not sourced or based on anything. We should not be guessing. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand Vegaswikian1's proposal, as the rename target Category:Proposed railway stations already exists, and I'm not clear what is meant by "Merge in...". Does it mean that we should upmerge this and Category:Proposed railway stations by date and all its yearly sub-cats into Category:Proposed railway stations? I think that would not be a good outcome, as the contents are also sub-categorised by location. Instead, if we don't want to keep the analysis by date, we should do a check that all the contents are categorised as proposed railway stations by location, and delete rather than merge the date categories. – FayenaticLondon 06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having run into several building categories for buildings planned or being built or similar, there is a failure to update the articles. It is not uncommon to see someone create a series of articles and then no one compels by to update the material. When you can find sources, it is not uncommon for the completion date to move several years into the future. It is also not uncommon to see these projects get cancelled. So using your local crystal ball, even with sources that commonly mimic press releases, should be discouraged. Also, is it defining when these are suppose to open? Or are we just grouping these for convenience? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did they actually open in 2012? Or did some open in 2013, or have yet to open? Or did they open early, in 2011? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the history or anything about the stations in this category. I just came across it and noticed it was outdated so I brought its attention here. I don't like the idea of Category:Railway stations being constructed because this implies the stations are being constructed at the moment, when a station could be planned and it has yet to begin construction. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is problematic for many reasons - but the main one is POV. Computing and computer science continue to evolve, so the inventor of Twitter may well be a "Pioneer" in the 140-character message but I'm not sure if that was the intent of this category. As you click on various bios, they are often of people who did some work in the 50s/60s/70s, but I still fail to see how this is defining, and why *everyone* who worked during that era should thus not be awarded as a computing pioneer. I think one of its subcats, Internet pioneers, can be a bit better defined, as there was a period where the fundamental structures of the internet were being created, but computing started, well, way back in time, and things are obviously still progressing apace. I don't know what else to do with this category but delete it - otherwise it will continue to accumulate bios of people who see themselves as pioneers (and indeed, they may have been, in whatever particular sub-part of computing they were involved in). I realize there is a whole pioneers tree, I'm not ready to address that, but this one doesn't work. There is a List of pioneers in computer science which could be better sourced and populated, so I'd say we listify the key members of this cat and delete due to subjective criteria for inclusion. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any clear inclusion guidelines that allows us to definitively answer "yes" or "no" to a question of inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There ought to be tyhe basis for a valid category here, but it needs some better inclusion criteria. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is clearly not "everyone" who worked in that era, but those who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Seems a pretty slim argument to delete. Of course there is judgment needed to some extent, but the category is not "good" or "bad" pioneers. At most maybe rename it to a less judgmental term like "early computer people" but that sounds odd. "Computer pioneer" seems fairly natural to me. W Nowicki (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the inclusion criteria, specifically? If we wanted something more neutral, we could have Category:Computer people of the 1940s-1960s for example, and anyone working on this issue in those days would be there. Or Category:Pre-1970s computer researchers, so we get Ada Lovelace etc.? Categories need somewhat objective inclusion criteria, and as of now it's a magnet for everyone who ever did anything new with computers, ever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The delete comments here apply to pretty much everything in the parent category Category:Pioneers by field (and of course the child category, Category:Internet pioneers). I don't think we should single out computer pioneers. I agree that the idea of "pioneers" has definitional problems, and I don't personally like the word, but there's something here with merit. For one thing, it's useful in the "history" category tree to have a subcategory of notable figures in early computing. ... Anyway, as I'm writing all this I'm thinking maybe it's just better to do it with an article or list. --Lquilter (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went after this one as it was the biggest and most full of cruft, and seemed to be stretching the definition the most. Based on what we do here, I agree, we should probably reformulate the rest of the tree. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The inclusion criteria are unclear, and any attempt to define them would fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. This topic might be viable as an article, if it can be done without original research. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. I'm inclined to agree that this is just too vague to work as a category. And yes, I think that would go for most of the other subcategories of Category:Pioneers by field as well. Robofish (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no action: the nominated category was moved to Category:New York City FC in the middle of the discussion. No consensus to delete it.. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two entries here on the exact same topic, both of which were created today. It says they aren't even due to begin playing their game until 2015. Anything could happen before then. Not all teams or organisations are given their own category anyway. 86.40.104.50 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove categoryWP:CRYSTAL for the moment. However the project is notable enough to have ONE article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new Category:New York City FC. It's a little premature, but it does seem like this team is very likely to exist by 2015; if for some reason it doesn't, the categories can always be deleted. Robofish (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Harvard Centennial Medal recipients[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:Delete -- a non-defining honor from a graduate school to its alumni. This award from the Harvard Grad School of Arts & Sciences was established in 1989 and awarded from 2-4 graduates each year (7 in first year). The awardees are a disparate lot of folks, many of whom have lots of other award-winner categories on their articles, like Leon Kass, Margaret Atwood, Elaine Pagels ... This is better maintained in the list in the article for the Harvard Centennial Medal which can include footnotes, dates, and other information .... Lquilter (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per BHG's comment immediately above. If we are even remotely serious about eliminating categories for minor awards, this one should be pretty near the top of the list for pruning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 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:Members of the Nation of Gods and Earths[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.
Merge to Category:Five percenters, which seems to be the common name for members of this group, even used by themselves. Robofish (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Sounds good to me. You are correct that this category is an odd fish. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cateogry:Qing Dynasty. However I half wonder if we should rename that Category:Qing China, because it does not seem this is meant to be limited to things related directly to the dynasty as such. Since the Qing were in power from 1644 to 1912, they also partly overlap with the 17th-century and 20th-century cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Re-created in 2011 after deletion at CFD 2007 Nov 3. Sparsely-populated category with no stated criteria for inclusion. Although a few of the members were especially noted for preaching, according to citations, I do not even think it would be helpful to use these to start a list. Very many of Category:Religious leaders are preachers. There is already Category:Sermon writers and I have added a few members of the nominated category into that. There is no need for a merger as all the current members are suitably categorised as clergy, chaplains, missionaries etc. – FayenaticLondon 07:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete the other cats are plenty sufficient. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too vague. There are plenty of more specific categories to cover this. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To make things real fun, we could argue that virtually all active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to how the Church is set-up. On a more clear level, most people who are notable for preaching in any denomination hold clearly defined positions in the denomination that are better categorized in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since when do we categorize by continent? A whole bunch of these "X by continent" by this user, so someone else feel free to nominate the rest. Nymftalk to me 07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep this one we can keep - this doesn't impede navigation at all, if we just put all of the countries into a Category:Film directors by nationality tree (then these could be grouped into a film-directors-by-continent tree) - you can browse either way, with no impedance. See Category:Health for an example of how it's done - browse by continent, or by country. No impedance either way, and somewhat common (we have around 250 by-continent trees) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do Turkish film directors, for example, go in the Europe or Asia categories? Or both? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
both - check other continental cats, this is almost always done this way. Turkey and a few others are oddballs, so they go in both. Again, the problem here is that the cats in question are only in the continental containers - the standard is you can have continental containers and a by-country list as well, making it easier On the user.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment countries can be divided by continent, to make organization easier, since there's over 100 countries in the world -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Obi WK. Grouping categories by continent is a convenient and culturally relevant way of helping navigati0n. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since by nationality and by country are two different things, isn't it possible that there can be a French director from Australia? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually more relevant would be a French director from Guadaloupe. He is clearly French, Guadaloupe is a department of France, but is he "from Europe"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think about cases like that. If you start to look for them, and they're all *over* the tree, you will go mad. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think subcategorising people by continent is particularly inconvenient, and it can help to clear up those massive 'X by nationality' categories. At least in the case of film, it's justified - there really are differences between 'European film', 'Asian film', 'African film' etc. Robofish (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:American pornographic film actors Nymftalk to me 07:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to parent. agree it's one from the department of redundancy department. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Being damaged by something is not normally considered to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This does not form part of a "Ships damaged by something" category tree. This could behas been listified. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that CFD (in which I don't see much support for this category). The incidents category should really be just for articles that are about an incident (i.e. an event such as a fire), not for an article about any ship that had such an incident - most/all of the articles directly in the maritime incidents category are about an incident. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see any purpose to listify either, but maybe the WWII history gurus will like such a list. But it's not defining of the ships. If we had a category for articles about particularly notable kamikaze attacks (or attack waves) or whatever, I could see that, but not the ship itself. Otherwise, we'd have to also have Category:Ships damaged by icebergs and Category:Ships damaged by running into rocks and Category:Ships damaged by torpedos and there lies the path to category hell.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not defining for the ships involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I assume that there is already a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. Being sunk by a particular method is indeed a defining characteristic, but being merely damaged is not defining. For ships sunk in this way, we already have Category:Ships sunk by kamikaze attack, which I have just added as a subcat. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 24 May 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:Monasteries where Gautama Buddha stayed[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.
What is the Category:Places where someone stayed category tree? This sounds like it should be in it, and I'd like to see any other discussions about this. I'd think non-defining at first glance but maybe there's some reason I'm missing, if there's a whole category tree for it ... --Lquilter (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, whew. I thought maybe I was crazy. In that case ... --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete not defining of these places. next up: Places where Buddha had lunch. Places where Jesus drank tea. And so on...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, facts of historical & tourist interest are not the same thing as "defining" facts. Places where Jesus may have been conceived. Places where Mohammed gazed pensively toward the west. --Lquilter (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete analogue to Washington slept here sorts of cats; pick your prophet, what he/she did/thought/achieved and you get a new cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the Buddha was certainly a very notable figure, but I suspect there will be a problem of verifying this. Ulimately, this suffers from the same problem as a performance by perfoemer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of thing might work for a list but it does not work for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 23 May 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:Villages in Norfolk connected with houses of historical interest[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: Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. This makes a mess of the category structure. There is not a wider "Places connected with buildings of historical interest" category tree. DexDor (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it it crazy-making to categorize things according narrower contents: "Bodies associated with arms", "Systems associated with stuff in them". ... This is also a sort of many-to-many category which is also crazy-making. Delete, delete, delete. --Lquilter (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete^3 I don't even know how to explain all of the numerous reasons this is a bad category, so I'll just say not defining. At all. It's rather amusing, I added 'ddd' to my edit summary on the previous one before seeing LQs delete delete delete - so I think we're of a similar mind on both of these perhaps. This cat has been around since 2010 - wow. We need to get better at catching and eliminating this category cruft much sooner.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "connected with" would that be by welding or some other mechanism? purely weaselly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be possible to devise a category on estate villages, but I am dubious as to that being possible.
Delete The fact that we only have this category for Norfolk just screams that it is a bad idea. This is a bad way to categorize. It is unclear it has any meaning in the present, and in general we should only categorize places by present status. Otherwise many places in Eastern Europe would be categoized as in 3 or more countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 28 May 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.
