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.
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:Canadian musicians missing province or territory[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: These are miscellany categories for articles about musicians and musical groups that do not indicate the province or territory from which the musician or group originated. However, as in any case of subcategorization, these articles should remain in their respective parent categories until individiual items can be moved into appropriate subcategories. WikiProject Canadian music may choose to separately track this characteristic on the talk pages of relevant articles, using their project banner, but in this case I don't see how that would be better than simply monitoring and diffusing Category:Canadian musicians and Category:Canadian musical groups. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep these are hidden categories, and are cleanup categories, so I don't really see why we should delete them. Cleanup categories can be placed into the cleanup category tree, whereas the regular categories will never be so placed. Further, the categories suggested for merging have non-province based subcategories, so not appearing in the base category does not mean it has province information attached to the article. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, these are maintenance categories which are serving to help editors identify articles that need work, and are hidden to and thus non-browsable by general users. As such, there's no real reason for deletion here; since both musicians and musical groups are already subcategorized by genre anyway, these aren't precluding any category that the pages in question would otherwise be sitting in, since they would already be diffused out of the parent category on genre grounds whether the province or territory category was missing or not. That said, I was able to remove some entries by virtue of the fact that province or territory information was present in the article and just hadn't been categorized yet, or even in a couple of cases that the page was already sitting in a "by specific city" subcategory of the province or territory-level category — but these are still maintenance categories in which inclusion is meant to be temporary, and aren't interfering with anything at the content level. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 23 September 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:Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois[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: In the past we have decided specifically to not create categories for basketball players from specific cities (see Basketball Players from Oregon CFD) That discussion captures the essence so please read the discussion. My suggestion is to (re)upmerge to the 2 categories "Basketball players from Illinois" and "Sportspeople from Chicago, Illinois." Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will have to restate what I have said before. I can understand not needing such a category for Portland and other smaller cities, but Chicago is a different story. Chicago is a much larger city and a considerably higher proportion of professional basketball players come from it. I can easily imagine someone being interested in knowing what basketball players come from Chicago. Also, Sportspeople from Chicago is a rather large category and dividing into basketball, baseball, or American football would help narrow it down. I was hoping that we could limit it to three cities: Chicago, NYC and LA.Hoops gza (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did you pick those three cities? Population? Media market size? Perceived top exporters of basketball players? There is no way to limit this hierarchy structure to three cities - just look at the sportspeople cats - they originally only featured major metro areas and now we have "Sportspeople from Akron, Ohio," "Sportspeople from Eugene, Oregon," etc. a category structure either exists or it doesn't, and editors cannot be blamed for assuming that a category structure that exists should be carried out further. Rikster2 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to your questions are yes, but I fully understand the explanations for why these categories are difficult to allow or maintain.Hoops gza (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge As with Portland. There would be many people from any large city who play basketball. However, sportspeople from XXX cats are sufficient for them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Creating ever deeper intersections between unrelated attributes causes category clutter and makes category maintenance much more onerous. Sure, Chicago is a big city, but I don't see any evidence that it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a baseball player than they came from the city rather its suburbs, many of which are in the much larger Chicago metropolitan area. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge splitting categories by profession and city, except when that profession is linked directly to the location (e.g. Category:New york City politicians, is over categorization.--TM 21:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There is no workable way to limit a structure like this to top cities. It is better to have large state articles, than a clutter of minor cities. Does anyone actually see any good in Category:Actors from Santa Monica, California?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. We've been down this road before with Portland, Oregon. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per precedent. There was a similar CFD for Baseball players from Chicago....William 12:25, 23 September 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 consensus to rename/delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of a general scheme detailed in the Irish bishops talk page. To facilitate a tripartite realignment Pre-Reformation / Church of Ireland / Roman Catholic. To distinguish between bishops as the ordinaries of sees in Ireland as opposed to people of Irish nationality/heritage who have been bishops elsewhere: in Great Britain, the diaspora, the Empire, as missionaries, or in the Roman curia. To eliminate the use of "Anglican" rather than "Church of Ireland" which seems designed to gloss over the fact that the Church of Ireland regards the pre-Reformation bishops as part of its heritage; the earlier one are in effect ceded to the Roman Catholic categories. Not sure about the "in Ireland" suffix: are there any Church of Ireland archdeacons or bishops who are not in Ireland? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for this nom and remains tagged, possibly due to an incomplete transclusion: the CFD was not closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a one-child category, which will be emptied by merging that child to Category:Bishops in Ireland. The result of this will be that the two denominational foremr bishops categories are directly in the main parent, along with all the current bishoprics (or bishops). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the deletion proposal to the list. However the closing admin did not allow the "Former" renames in the other nomination as there was no clear consensus. So I'd prefer that to go forward independently of this nom. Also, I think that PK is right about "in Ireland" - it's redundant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard of Anglican Church referred to as the Post-Reformation Church. Have you solicited input from the WikiProject Christianity? LizRead!Talk! 01:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Liz, as an Anglican.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have not notified that project, just the Ireland project. However, it is wrong to say that the name, as proposed, is "The Post-Reformation Anglican Church". The intent of the proposal was to allow for the claim of that particular Anglican Church, the Church of Ireland, to have equal claim over both sets of bishops, both pre and post the Reformation. To leave things as they stand is to cut off the Church of Ireland from pre-Reformation bishops. That ought to be avoided surely? So the name is to be read as "Bishops of the Church of Ireland dating from after the Reformation". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply But they're not Anglican bishops in general. That would include the episcopal churches of America, Scotland and Zambia, should they choose to re-evangelise Ireland. They are bishops of the Church of Ireland in particular. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@BrownHairedGirl: But the whole idea of the new scheme is to allow both churches take the "credit" for the pre-Reformation bishops. There is no need to worry about the post-Reformation bishops. The two denominations do not lay claim to the same post-Reformation bishops. Each has its own set of post-Reformation bishops. Neither lays claim to the bishops of the other denomination. They might both claim the bishopric (see) but that's a different story. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Laurel Lodged:. There is no indeed need to worry about the post-Reformation bishops. That's precisely why I oppose the renaming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ReplyReply@BrownHairedGirl: The charge of sentence snipping is unjustified I think. Your argument has been faithfully presented. I will reproduce it here again: "my specific objection to this category was ... to the "Post-Reformation" construct", "when two denominations lay claim to the same heritage, we should be treating them equally". In my previous post I pointed out that in the case of the post-Reformation bishops, the case that you mentioned simply does not arise as two denominations do not claim the same heritage. It follows therefore that your objection withers away and so should be withdrawn. And please refrain from personal attacks; confine your comments to the subject matter. The category creation was not "silly", it may be ill-advised, illogical or ungrammatical but good faith compels us to refrain from using the word "silly". It is disappointing that I should consistently have to remind an Admin about such basic good manners in discussions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Hope you are having fun with all the distortion-by-out-of-context-quote. If you ever get bored with trying to claim that I hold I position that I don't hold and have opposed, just re-read what i wrote at the start of the thread: Two denominations lay claim to the pre-reformation bishops, so we should have a Category:pre-reformation bishops of Foo, which would be a subcat of both Category:Anglican bishops of Foo and Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Foo. Which part of that is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I can't understand why you have quoted the Pre-Reformation statements. It is with the post-Reformation position that the illogicality arises. Please address the post-Reformation position that you have advanced. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 3 October 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.
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. Additionally, quite useful for WP:COMEDY purposes and also multiple varied other helpful usages, as well. — Cirt (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How often does someone have to have thrown a pie to get here?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or rename and purge - The political act of Pieing may be a legitimate subject for a category, with that article, the list, Entartistes and Biotic Baking Brigade being appropriate members. Categorizing everyone who threw a pie and every film in which a pie was thrown is not. So either rename to Category:Pieing and remove anything not related to the political act, or, if four entries is deemed too small to sustain it, delete and link the articles through appropriate "See also" sections. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:42, 23 September 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 per WP:OC#AWARD and WP:NOTDEFINING. Per WP:CAT Categories are meant to be defining characteristics of the topic and this category does not meet that criteria. Being that this award is widely conferred upon military members (SNCOs and O-4/5s generally) it is a non-defining characteristic, even if an individual received multiple MSMs it would not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. — -dainomite 06:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People should generally be categorized by what they did, not by how other people have recognized them for what they did. These medals are not of such importance that WP can be expected to have articles on all their recipients, therefore, if a list is needed in WP, it should be a proper list - not an attempt to create a list using categorization. DexDor (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For certain ranks, it's more defining if you don't have one of these -- people wonder how you got promoted.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lineagegeek's comment...it is just another ticket punch for senior ranks...without it you don't ride...Cuprum17 (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's honor, to be meritorious in decades of the years And NOT to be lazy, traitor, etc. It's the only one reason (and it's about my voting). Vanquisher.UA(talk) 22:11, 27 September 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 consists (apart from the synonymous-eponymous article) of articles about places (villages, woods etc) that a walking trail passes through. That a trail passes through a place is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that place (most of which existed long before the trail). We don't usually categorize places by which roads/railways etc pass through them (example CFD) so why should a walking trail be any different? This category also causes articles to be incorrectly (per WP:SUBCAT) categorized (e.g. Petts Wood under Category:London Borough of Enfield). For info: This category was recently included in a broad CFD nomination with a no consensus result. DexDor (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The individual places are section starting points rather than simply places the route passes through. Create a subcategory and recategorise as Category:London Loop section starting points. MRSC (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But are they defined by this fact? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a place will be on various roads, bus-routes, railway lines and so on, none of which is defining for the place. Oculi (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oculi. However much anyone likes of the London Loop, it is one of the more minor of the many characteristics of the places through which it passes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is not categorising articles about the path, but articles about places through which the path passes. This is in the nature of a performance (being on path) by performer (place) category, whihc we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 22 September 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:Split. This should become a container category, instead of being a use category. The files categorized here are under UK Crown copyright, and not any old crown copyright, therefore should be categorized correctly. The way it is now formatted, the subcategories for Canadian and New Zealander are incorrectly categorized, as they are not subsidiary licenses of UK Crown copyright. There's no indication these are British files-only, so this is problematic and WP:Systematic bias against any Crown copyright that isn't British. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 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:Merge. Masjid is just another word for mosque (it redirects there). Tassedethe (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Duplicate category, they are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 24 September 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.
