Category:Priests convicted of child sexual abuse[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: Per rest of tree, this is a member of Catholic parent cats and should specify that it is only for Catholic priests. Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, priests is too imprecise Unibond (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2015 (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: Inherent WP:NPOV problems. This is being added to articles in which "far-left" is not even mentioned. Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (NPOV problem). BMK (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no other "Catholicism" and spectrum politics categories. One would think that there would be many other such categories, such as the Catholic church and fascism from WWII contrversies, etc. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real content. Also the parenting is very poor, particularly "Catholicism-related controversies" which defines far-left politics as a type of controversy. It would be much better to start with the much broader Category:Catholicism and politics in line with Category:Religion and politics. SFB 23:07, 12 January 2015 (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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county communities with just 2 or 3 entries. ...William 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator). Category is part of a countywide categorization. If this were deleted, every town by Oakham in Worcester County would have a separate people from category.--TM 18:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus has long been that it takes five or more entries for a small community to qualify for a People from category unless the community is in more in one county. Two isn't even close....William 01:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sionk and Namiba I added the other towns to this CFD....William 01:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my Comment to 'Support'. Sionk (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge All per WP:SMALLCAT. All of these are small and the towns have less than 5,000 people so the growth potential is limited. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong upmerge for Oakham, Berlin, East and West Brookfield and Hubbardston as small settlements (<4000 people) which will be unlikely to garner many notable biographies. Weaker upmerge on Paxton which is slightly larger but still a small settlement with little likelihood of expansion – three biographies for 250 years of the town's history is hardly a niche worthy of its own navigation. The content is better navigated in prose or lists on the articles. SFB 23:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: West Brookfield now has 5 entries.--TM 13:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though two were from Brookfield, before West Brookfield existed and one only worked at West Brookfield for a couple of years. Sionk (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them. Being buried somewhere doesn't make them from that place. Sionk is dead on point about the other two....William 03:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom. I think these are all too small to be kept, and for the case of West Brookfield, Jabez Upham doesn't belong. kennethaw88 • talk 04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all - clear smallcat, I think. Neutralitytalk 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all Small categories hinder navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2015 (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: To make clear that this is a category for templates, not for articles and to have a name that is consistent with the other subcats of Category:External link templates. Note: the category text should also be changed. DexDor (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match current standard in category tree. SFB 23:27, 13 January 2015 (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. Category:Medieval mythology had two things in it, Draconcopedes and Christian Mythology. Draconcopedes is more accurately described as a legend since it was included in some medieval zoologies, so I added it to Category:Medieval legends. While Christian Mythology has a small amount of info about the Middle ages, the majority is not. I removed both things from the category because they didn't really belong there, and the category itself seemed redundant with Category:Medieval legends existing. So with nothing in it Currently, I think it is a good candidate for deletion. If it is felt this a good category, I can move Draconcopedes back there. Perhaps some more articles should be listed there in that case. Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for giving background on what used to be in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I suspect there may be a viable category here but, without a main article on Medieval mythology, it's impossible to know what to put in it or to know the difference between that and Medieval legends. No objection to recreating later if this topic is expanded on the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, actually RevelationDirect has said more or less what I was going to say - it needs a main article. 'Myth' and 'legend' are often interchangeable, so either a merger to Category:Medieval legends or deleting Category:Medieval mythology would reult in the same difference. Sionk (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mythology is better divided by theme and culture. This attempt to categorise by era would logically group together many aspects of mythology which only coincide in time, not in culture or creation. On that basis it is a trivial category. SFB 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining what was there, but you should not have emptied it before nominating it for CFD. There is a technical definition of a myth which is differnet from a legend, but we do not need to keep what is now an empty category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron. Christian Mythology didn't belong in the category. While there could be arguments for Draconcopedes or other articles from that time period to be in the category, I tend to agree with Sillyfolkboy's position that this topic in particular is better divided into categories in other ways. When the category was empty I could have simply left it alone and had a empty category taking up space, or waited four days and nominated it for speedy deletions. Perhaps I should have gone one of those ways. I felt it would be better to nominate it here, so that in the spirit of Wikipedia, a consensus could be reached on it. Though it is true you shouldn't clear out a category you nominate for deletion WP:CFD - I removed the things that didn't belong there, THEN nominated it for deletion because it was empty. So it's a rather grey area. In good faith, I listed everything that was in the category that I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightgodsy (talk • contribs)
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. Clearly these two categories have the same scope and their contents could be interchangeable. My preference would be a merger to the "Architecture of... " category, to match the Architecture of the United Kingdom article. Architecture has a fixed physical presence at a location, rather than a nationality, per se, so in my view the "Architecture of... " category name makes more sense.
However, I'm open to the idea of a merger in the opposite direction. This CfD decision may have broader implications - the vast majority of categories in Category:Architecture by country are not "Architecture of FOOland" categories (though many more of the matching Wikipedia articles are). Because the top category is not Category:Architecture by nationality I would argue that the other "FOOlandian architecture" categories be renamed to "Architecture of FOOland", but that evidently would be a big job!! Sionk (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Different Logic British usually refers to the island (England, Wales, Scotland) and excludes Northern Ireland. However, the sub-categories here seems to use "British" to mean the culture and may be good candidates for renaming. If kept, much of the contents should be removed from the UK category and placed here to avoid WP:OVERLAPCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to British architecture, per current standard in the category tree. Types of national architecture are a cultural product, not a physical concept attached to a specific country's borders (like buildings or rail infrastructure). An easy example of this is Category:British colonial architecture, which is clearly not a sub-type of architecture of the United Kingdom. Cultural concepts should be linked to the culture (British) not the main country of that culture (United Kingdom). SFB 13:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge "British" is commonly applied to people from the whole of the UK, theough Northern Ireland Republicans do noit accept it. Categories are frequently sight fuzzy in scope and often the better for it. British architecture can this conveniently encompass both architecture by British arcitects and architecure in UK. Attempts to defione categories too precisely often result in fragmentation inot categories too small toi be usefula s naviugation aids. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2015 (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:Populated places on Iceland's Route 1[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: Per WP:NON-DEFINING. This article groups many very old towns based on whether they are along a road that was built in 1974. According the introduction of the main article, "Route 1 ... runs around the island and connects most of the inhabited parts of the country." If there was ever a description of a non-defining category, that is it.RevelationDirect (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorizing places by which routes they are on could lead to a large number of WP:NON-DEFINING categories on some (non-Iceland) articles. Towns should not be in Category:Roads. The list is a better way to list the places a route passes through. DexDor (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and DexDor. Not a useful way to categorize articles. --ELEKHHT 22:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we ought not be categorizing populated places based on what railways or roads connect them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is not of much use.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have removed a lot of categories of this kind in the past. Being on a road is too like a performance (road) by a performer (place). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2015 (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.
