Category:Anglican churches in South East Asia[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: Does not fit in Wikipedia's regional categorization scheme, since there is no parent Category:South East Asia or Category:Christianity in South East Asia. The nominated category contains only three child categories so there's no navigational benefit of keeping it either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting! Prefer rename over original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportCategory:Anglican churches in Southeast Asia per Oculi. The Anglican churches in India were amalgamated into the Church of North India and Church of South India, so that there is likely to be a real administrative unity to the area of the target category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2014 (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.
Comment some of these categories are not solely divided by continent, as they have regions and countries. "by continent" should therefore be a subcategory of "by region" in those cases. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, though I'm not really enthusiastic about creating a container cat (by region) for just two child cats (by continent and by country). Anyway it's only Category:Roman Catholic Church by region that has a by-country child category - rather I'd just move the by-country category up one level, to become a direct child of Category:Roman Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is already a continent hierarchy within Category:Christianity by location. The Category:Christianity by region part of that should only be needed for regions that are not continents or countries, e.g. Arab World, Caribbean, or the sub-national examples in the United Methodist category. Where there are none of these, but only continents & counties, the parent should be "by location" rather than "by region". – FayenaticLondon 17:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fayenatic London's comments. The location/place type categories are highly intuitive and broad, and should be used more frequently. SFB 19:49, 10 December 2014 (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 Union City, Pennsylvania[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:Upmerge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge this is a city that has never had more than 4,000 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2014 (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.
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. Like the Oct 26 CFD linked in this discussion, this is a 2:1 vote for deletion, with a reasonably good and strongly held case against deletion. However, I have closed this in conjunction with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 6#Category:Twisted Sister tribute albums where the same "keep" arguments were more clearly rejected. Even so, these do not provide a very strong precedent. Before any further such nominations, someone may wish to start a central discussion, probably at WT:WikiProject Albums, about the value of these one-member tribute album categories. (In case a future discussion reverses this outcome, the member page to be moved up is Never Say Dinosaur.) – FayenaticLondon 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content to justify split. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it would be nice if Koavf could link to previous discussions which support this sort of merge. Here is a recent cfd (26 Oct 2014) which does not. @KConWiki: supplies a very persuasive argument there for retention. And 'Petra (band) tribute album' is a (the) defining characteristic of a Petra tribute album. Oculi (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories are for navigating content with similar attributes. A one-article category cannot achieve this and is not part of a "Petra (band)" tree or national tree that would add navigational value. SFB 20:50, 27 December 2014 (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:Men's basketball players from Alabama[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. – FayenaticLondon 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale guidelines discourage this type of last-rung by gender subdividing of cateogories. We either should give up these splits, or create equivalent women's categories. The men/women split for the American category is supported, there has been no concensus for lower level dividsions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The division by gender and by national sub-location are useful, but it's not clear how useful it is when we combine the navigation of the two. If diffusion of the top level American men's player category is desirable, then a more productive division would be by position. Seeing as we don't even have any other divisions on that topic, I think there is scope to include it more anyway, e.g. Category:Men's basketball forwards. (FYI I also tweaked the two last noms as obvious typos). SFB 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. – FayenaticLondon 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Thinkers" is a terrible categorization scheme, does it imply anyone not in these categories doesn't "think". Perhaps.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per commonsense. Oculi (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt about this, as it's uncertain that the categories can be populated. This applies especially to Adventist writers - since Adventist theologians already have their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that they can be populated to an extent that WP:SMALLCAT wouldn't apply (as I would presume that WP:SMALLCAT would apply in the current situation). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinkers is too broad to be a definitive or distinguishing feature. I understand Fayenatic's suggestion, but think those categories would be better created separately, if a need is evident, rather than as part of this nomination. SFB 20:53, 27 December 2014 (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.
