Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12[edit]

Category:Grade I listed public houses[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To tie in with the proposed renaming of the Grade II and Grade II* buildings categories. There are no Grade I listed pubs in Wales that I know of (well, one next to Llanthony Abbey but it does not have a WP article). If Grade I listed Welsh pubs come to light, a new category can be created in the future. A renamed category will fit much better into the category tree (Scotland has a different listing system, so categorising under UK is a bit incongruous). Sionk (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Note: the category already has text and a parent category that are specific to England. DexDor (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: likewise for listed churches, cathedrals and ruins.(where Wales also has its own subcategories) Hugo999 (talk) 00:48, 16 October 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:Modern Family characters[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 (no merger needed). WP:Categorizing redirects explains when that practice is useful; here it is unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redirects do not need a category. SAJ (T) 21:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe instead it could just be turned into a category of Modern Family redirects. Also, sorry I emptied the category; I realized I had made a mistake after the fact. 21:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The category may have changed since it was nominated. Right now it only includes List of Modern Family characters and nothing else. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge one article to Category:Modern Family with no objection to recreating later if there are 4 additional articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Secret Agent Julio: You may not be aware of this but emptying a category immediately before proposing its deletion is against policy. Furthermore, several redirects are categorized in schemes with articles--what dictates whether they are or not can be a little arbitrary. It would be easy to make an article out of several of these redirects, as there are ample sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – redirects (with targeted content, such as these) should be categorised exactly as if they were articles. (Phil Dunphy was an article until 2011. Not clear to me why it was redirected.) Oculi (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't object to including redirects in a category if the target isn't already in that category. For instance, a song may not have it's own article yet and fit in a category when the redirect points to an album. But this category just groups 1 article 8 times. I can't see how that aids navigation but no objection to recreating later when there's more than 1 article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue is not should a category have redirect. However when all except one article is a redirect, all pointing to that one article, the category is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- "One Franchise: one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 16 October 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:Grade II listed public houses[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The vast, vast majority of buildings in these categories are in England. I've removed the small number of Welsh pubs into new categories i.e. Category:Grade II listed public houses in Wales etc. The categories fit much better into the category tree now, particularly because Scotland has its own listed building system. Sionk (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- in reliance on nom's assurance that he has properly split it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 16 October 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:Wikipedians who are enemies of control/personality freaks[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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Populated by a userbox that states "Warning to personality and control freaks. This user is your number one enemy and warns you to butt out". I can't see any positives of this category. Violates WP:USERCAT in that it does not foster collaboration of the encyclopedia in any way. There will never be an encyclopedic purpose to specifically seek out users grouped in this category to try and help improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. One would optimistically hope the category would contain almost all Wikipedians, thereby rendering it useless! Sionk (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Mean-spirited nonsense. Quis separabit? 05:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a classic example of an attack category.01:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above and violates WP:USERCAT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Another POV user cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 16 October 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:User rw-0[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 category. Only stub templates should be deleted at CfD. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Extensive, unanimous, and sound precedent to delete 0-level categories. We don't categorize users based on languages we can't speak. VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does the template serve any function? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, although my understanding is that templates that don't help the encyclopedia have a lot more leeway than categories, so I focus much more on the latter. If someone would like to nominate the templates associated with not speaking a language (with the exception of English, which I think would be helpful on the English Wikipedia as a template on a userpage) then I'd probably support that. VegaDark (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template and category Completely unclear why not speaking a language would be worthy of note, except in the case where that language is the main language of the given Wikipedia (e.g. Template:User en-0 would be reasonable here). @VegaDark: I would support if you nominate the other zero language templates as well. SFB 00:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I don't oppose deleting the template, I doubt the closing admin has discretion to delete that when it wasn't nominated or tagged, barring WP:IAR. VegaDark (talk) 22:00, 23 October 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:Eco-friendly users[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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that there is no possible way that this category fosters collaboration to help build the encyclopedia. There is no encyclopedic reason to go seeking out users in this category. Additionally, it appears that several userboxes automatically populate this category, including gems like "This user says NO to pollution" and "This users would like to say, "Do not litter." These are stances 99.9% of the world takes and it doesn't make them eco-friendly. Finally, it's named incorrectly and uses "Users" instead of the standard "Wikipedians" VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. (The userboxes themselves also have a lot of problems, but they're a different matter.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 16 October 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:Wikipedians taking part in the Wikiwarriors project at the Lawrence Public Library in Kansas[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inappropriate category. Event already took place, so wording in category is inaccurate. Having categories for users who are going to take part in small local Wikimedia events sets a bad precedent for creating other similar categories. If people wish to track others who attended, a userbox or userspace list would be sufficient. VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 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:Wikipedians who have turned off VisualEditor[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is a "not" category - it categorizes users who don't do something. Extensive precedent to delete here. Populated by a userbox stating "This user does not

support VisualEditor's WYSIWYG appearance", which isn't even the same thing as the category name. No possible reason to seek out users in this category for collaboration purposes. VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I fail to see why that precedent applies to this case, as people who don't use the visual editor use the wikicode standard editor, and therefore, are people to seek out if the standard editor is broken. Reword the userbox to "People who use the standard Wikipedia wikicode editor" or somesuch. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with a rename is we don't know which editors in this category apply to each of those you just proposed. A deletion and then formation of those categories would solve. I'd feel better about those categories (the biggest issue of this category is the "who have turned off" part) but I'm still not convinced that developers would seek out people in these categories to check if something in the standard editor is broken. VegaDark (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as near as I can tell, this doesn't tell other users anything about what may be misperceived or not seen, which might help out, but merely says "I don't like the way it looks"; therefore it doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination statement's inaccurate. Switching off the visual editor is an act: a thing we've done. The negative category that describes people who haven't done something would be "Editors who have not switched off the visual editor". Nomination statement, and Carlossuarez46's vote, also appear to conflate being in the category with displaying the template. I'm in the category, because I've turned off the editor. I've never displayed the template which is what they're actually objecting to. Shouldn't this discussion really be a TfD of the template?—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 27 October 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:Wikipedians in favor of secularism[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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is a support/oppose category. Extensive precedent to delete here. No possible reason to seek out users in this category for collaboration purposes. VegaDark (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no collaborative purpose beyond seeking out fellow pushers of a certain agenda. SFB 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not do support or oppose categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 15 October 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:Nuclear research centers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Research institutes and most other categories in this area (e.g. see Category:Research institutes by country) use the word "institute" rather than the word "center". Another slight advantage of using "institute" is avoiding the WP:ENGVAR issue of "center"/"centre". A rename to use the word "facilities" or "organizations" might also work (and would match one of the other parent categories). Note: I plan to create by-country categories for more countries (e.g. the US and the UK), but would like to get the category naming agreed first. DexDor (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on both points given. SFB 00:32, 13 October 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:LGBT people from Washington, D.C.[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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As much as I may disagree with the idea that Category:LGBT people from the United States should actually be subcategorized by the individual state that they happen to be from, I can accept that there was a consensus against me the first time I nominated Category:LGBT people from the United States by state for deletion. But starting to subcategorize LGBT people by individual city that they happen to be from is definitely a step too far over the WP:OCLOCATION line, which needs to be nipped in the bud before it turns into a precedent that would launch a massive profusion of SMALLCATs for every single individual town or city that ever had a notable LGBT person born in it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge. Categorizing by combinations of biographical characteristics could lead to an article being in a huge number of categories (e.g. LGBT people who died of cancer, LGBT people born in 1973 etc) and such categorization would be largely incomplete and unmaintainable. DexDor (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general, I see categorizing by DC, Guam, etc. as a logical extension of categorizing by state. Now, if someone uses those two as a jumping off point to start categorizing by city and by island, at that point, I would be concerned that a separate conversation was needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except that "by state" isn't really a particularly warranted or valuable level of categorization either. I can accept that there was a consensus to allow it, but the rationale for it is still fundamentally untenable and the vast majority of the by-state categories are still WP:SMALLCATs (as is this). Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that nomination to get rid of the whole tree failed. (I didn't participate in that discussion and honestly don't have an opinion). The question here though is whether DC should be treated differently than states. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an American location that falls outside of the state divisions, it is reasonable to keep this. I don't see keeping it on that basis as reason to consider all city categories viable (as these would not represent the first primary subdivision level of a country). SFB 00:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you divvy up Americans by State, some provision for Washington DC needs be made. That said, I don't think that categorizing people by race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, per se, is a useful category subject. First, it's ghettoizing. Second, the characteristic or how it's defined or used as self-identification may change over time. Third, third-party sources that in no way rely on the statements of the person being categorized for attribution of such categorizations are hard to find. Fourth, aren't we better than this? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The difference between Washington D.C. and New York City (say) is that New York City is part of a state. Hence adding the population of the 50 states will include the population of New York City but not of Washington D.C. See Category:Categories by state of the United States where the template includes Washington D.C. Various large/capital cities have dual status as both a city and the next-level administrative category eg as a county (London) or German state (Berlin). Also Bristol in England which is not part of an English county (unlike say Birmingham, England which is part of the West Midlands (county). Hugo999 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bristol is a ceremonial county. Quis separabit? 04:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what as to Bristol. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Many US categories are split by state, but Washington DC is not in any state and so needs to be a sibling of the states (and territories) of USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 16 October 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:Schools with Combined Cadet Forces[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a school has a CCF unit is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the school - e.g. in an article like Edinburgh Academy having a CCF is not mentioned. This could be listified. For info: this category is the result of a rename by CFD in 2005. DexDor (talk) 18:08, 12 October 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:Highlife albums by artist nationality[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 to Category:Highlife albums for now; could be re-created in the future if more content is added about such albums which requires more categories by nationality . Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This scheme of Category:Highlife albums is too small to warrant diffusion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_9#Category:Highlife_albums_by_Nigerian_artists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold until the other discussion completes. DexDor (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Highlife albums, and delete Category:Highlife by nationality for the time being. I have just closed the other discussion as "no consensus". There may be scope to create articles on notable highlife albums by Ghanaian, Liberian and Sierra Leonean artists, in addition to the existing sub-cat for Nigeria, but until they exist there is no need for this additional level for albums. Moreover, this merger would render Category:Highlife by nationality unnecessary for navigation, so it could be deleted without loss. (Note: even though Category:Highlife albums is small, the sub-cat's other parent Category:Albums by Nigerian artists/ by genre is large enough to warrant diffusion.) – Fayenatic London 15:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: another sub-category has been added for British highlife albums, although it is of questionable value for navigation as it only contains Category:Osibisa albums. I considered creating it myself but had decided against it. Upmerging the nominated category still looks a reasonable outcome to me, without prejudice to re-creation if more articles are created about Highlife albums. – Fayenatic London 23:00, 2 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:Latter Day Saint 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, inspection shows no merging is needed. – Fayenatic London 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize actors by religion, with the exception of Judaism

I am also nominating the following similar categories for deletion for the same rationale:

pbp 04:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "actors by religion" tree was deleted long ago (including Category:Mormon actors), and I don't think anything that has happened since then militates in favor of reviving it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Combination of two features that have little to do with one another. I'm willing to reconsider if someone shows me how being a Latter Day Saint modifies acting. SFB 00:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another unmaintainable religion cat, no indication that LDS actors "act" differently than their non-LDS counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Religion is a key factor in the career of many actors. In the case of many of these actors, they have primarily had success in acting in Mormon-related films. Others have made career decisions based on their faith. In acting, we split virtually all levels based on gender, so this is really just a three part intersection. I would have no problem upmerging it to being a two part intersection, and also up-merging to Category:American Latter Day Saints. At an absolutely minimum, we cannot delete this category, and should upmerge it to Category:American Latter Day Saints, and make sure that all those in the category are also in acceptable actor categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge alternative of previous editor, assuming that the people in this category aren't already in these parent categories (which I haven't checked). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 18 October 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:American Latter Day Saint male 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, upmerging where needed. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two main reasons:
  1. Aside of Judaism, we don't generally categorize actors by religion
  2. OCAT. This is an intersection of FOUR things: being American, being a guy, being Mormon, and being an actor

I am also nominating Category:American Latter Day Saint actresses for deletion for the same rationale. pbp 04:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as subcategories of the above categories. The "actors by religion" tree was deleted long ago (including Category:Mormon actors), and I don't think anything that has happened since then militates in favor of reviving it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Combination of two features that have little to do with one another. I'm willing to reconsider if someone shows me how being a Latter Day Saint modifies acting. SFB 00:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this is less than useful subcategorization, which repeats a mistake that has already been fixed once. —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above, adding in an inappropriate gender component too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Religion is a key factor in the career of many actors. In the case of many of these actors, they have primarily had success in acting in Mormon-related films. Others have made career decisions based on their faith. In acting, we split virtually all levels based on gender, so this is really just a three part intersection. I would have no problem upmerging it to being a two part intersection, and also up-merging to Category:American Latter Day Saints. At an absolutely minimum, we cannot delete this category, and should upmerge it to Category:American Latter Day Saints, and make sure that all those in the category are also in acceptable actor categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge alternative of previous editor, assuming that the people in this category aren't already in these parent categories (which I haven't checked). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:23, 18 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_12&oldid=1083983744"