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: Single-item WP:SMALLCAT. Being deputy mayor of a city is not, in and of itself, a stronger WP:NPOL pass than any other role in city government -- the one person here got an article for serving in the national legislature, not for being deputy mayor per se, and since nobody else would get an article just for being deputy mayor in and of itself either, there's no viable prospect of this being expanded to five or six articles as far as I can determine. We do not create dedicated categories for every individual political position as soon as one holder of that title has a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- The one person already has an appropriate politician category, which would be the merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2017 (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:Deputy Mayors of Launceston, Tasmania[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: Single-item WP:SMALLCAT for a political position that would not constitute an WP:NPOL pass in its own right. The one person who happens to be filed here qualifies for inclusion on a different criterion completely independent of his career in local politics -- and nobody would get an article just for being deputy mayor of Launceston in and of itself. Which means this is pretty much a permanent category of one. We do not create a dedicated category for every individual political position the moment one former holder of that title has a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one person already has several local politician categories, which would be the merge target. Local politicians are generally NN, so that we should not encourage such categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2017 (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:rename, the articles in this category are country members and a regional organisation of Caritas Internationalis. (Note that Caritas is just a disambiguation page.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2017 (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: Useless category, a non-professional tier. Geschichte (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (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:Delete. The lone article was the list, deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/List of sinkholes in Ottawa. That leaves only the redirects, and there is consensus not to have a category consisting solely of redirects. The consensus is that there should be no prejudice to recreating the category if and when there are any substantive (i.e. non-redirect) pages' about sinkholes in Canada. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which contains one list that's up for WP:AFD and four redirects. If there were any actual standalone articles about sinkholes to file here, then a category would be fine -- but it's not needed just to categorize redirects. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now If and when we get 5 or so actual articles on this topic, we can recreate. (I make no presumption on the outcome of the AfD nomination but that still leaves us with just 1 article.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale:rename in order to more clearly display its purpose and to disambiguate from Category:Irish bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This category has been confusing for years, and that's the simple, obvious solution. Good catch. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated category is yet another example of an LL-created category which uses a non-std naming format whose meaning amounts to almost exactly the same thing as the demonic version. The proposed renaming aligns it with the convention for expatriates. (Category:Irish bishops is not nominated as apart of this discussion, so it is off-topic and cannot be renamed by this discussion.) Once again, LL overlooks that there is an established convention of using demonyms, and Category:Irish bishops is a subcat of Category:Bishops by nationality, which uses demonyms like nearly all other ppl-by-occupation categories. A good case can be made for using another naming convention (though all bring their own problems), but this is not the place to rewrite that convention, and category management is disrupted if non-standard naming formats are use randomly. If LL wants to pursue the idea of abandoning demonyms, then WP:RFC is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overlap? What are you on about BHG? The categories Category:Bishops from Ireland and Category:Bishops in Ireland are mutually exclusive. If only every country had this model of logic there would be far less confusion and CFD acrimony. And each avoids the hated tyranny of demonyns. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL, far from being mutuialy exclusive, most people "in Ireland" are "from Ireland". The overlap is huge.
I understand the distinction which you are trying to make, but the terminology which you use does not convey that distinction. That is why it is better to follow the conventions for category naming (see Category:Expatriates by occupation), and explicitly label the expatriates. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be no overlap in content. I was talking about overlap in the meaning of the title, which is why I support this renaming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support -- The Irish have in the past produced many missionaries, some of whom rose to be bishops. The place for specifying that this is for bishops whose sees are outside Ireland might however be in a headnote. Certainly we must not merge with bishops in Ireland, a some of whom in the Church of Ireland may have been Englishmen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the stated content of the Category:Irish bishops is "Bishops of Episcopal sees who were born in Ireland or who have served in the island of Ireland..." So, Bishop X is born in Dublin and becomes the Bishop of Someplace, USA, he's both an Irish bishop and, provided he served as a bishop prior to obtaining US citizenship, also an expatriate bishop from Ireland. So again, there will be overlap and ambiguity; putting aside the issue of whether being born in Dublin and serving as a bishop in Belfast is expatriate (or ditto, a Belfast-born bishop of someplace, UK). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By renaming this category (and potentially other categories) to "expatriated" we can exactly avoid this kind of confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some editors are over-complicating quite a simple proposal by @Marcocapelle. If this is implemented, then we will have Category:Irish bishops, with subcats for diocesan posts in Ireland and subcats for expatriates. The current setup tries to achieve something similar, but its uses ambiguous terminology: "Bishops from Ireland" is intended to mean Irish expatriates, but can equally reasonably be understood to mean any bishop of Irish origin, including those who served in Ireland. Carlossuarez46 is right note a wider problem. Category:Cardinals in Australia is another creation of the same editor who created this ambiguously-named category, and appears to have been spreading the confusion around the categories relating to other countries. Categories need clear names which unambiguously do what it says on the tin, and unfortunately this particular editor seems to believe that others will all resolve the ambiguity in the same way as they choose to. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
More sugar-coated than usual. But a personal, spiteful attack nonetheless. Usual form in other words for BHG. Such a pity that she cannot stick to the facts alone. Laurel Lodged (talk)
LL. the fact is that the category name in use is ambiguous, and that there is a better alternative. There is nothing at all spiteful about regretting your unwillingness to support a clearer title which fits a well-established convention. Sadness, yes; spite, no. Please stop your bad faith determination to label every disagreement with you as a "personal attack", and try to find some willingness to accept that sometimes others come with a better idea than yours, as the nom has done here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some "alternate facts" in the above. (1) If it was a "fact" that the category name was ambiguous, there would be no need for CFD. (2) I have not been unwilling to support a clearer title. Do you see an "Oppose" vote from me? I have been engaging in constructive exploration of the implications of a proposal. That is, after all, the purpose of CFD is it not? (3) I have no problem with the nominator. On most CFD topics, we are ad idem.(4) There is evidence for characterising your contribution above as a "personal attack": "spreading the confusion around"; "unfortunately this particular editor" (as opposed to this particular argument is wrong because...). They are attacks on the man, not on the ball. (5) Conclusion: Sadness, yes; spite, yes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have checked the form elsewhere. I really do not see any difference if Expatriate or Irish comes first, so I am ok either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that formulation, but it's a step toward the wider cleanup I think is needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that formulation. Note to BHG: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2017 (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:delete (non-admin closure) and I have added the eponymous article in the header of the subcategory as its main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent for a single, well-defined category of the band's members. WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:52, 1 February 2017 (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:Delete. VegaDark (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly broad category both by confusion of 3D terminology (see previous discussion) and not useful for organizing "3D games", which each have more applicable subcategories (if sorting by 3D is even necessary). I imagine some of the subcategories here should be discussed as well. Category previously discussed recently and two years ago. Pinging prior discussants as a courtesy: @PresN, Martin IIIa, Freikorp, Hellknowz, IDV, and The1337gamerczar 01:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments of the WPVG talk page. To sum up: scope too broad to be useful. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad. Would have tens of thousands of items were it to be implemented correctly. Currently has around 80. I think it would be better to just scrap it.Sergecross73msg me 18:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3D graphics are not a defining characteristic for video games.--IDVtalk 19:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, better gone than wasted. (Missed me? :) ) Gamingforfun365 02:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree that is too broad. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2017 (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.
