Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28[edit]

Musical theatre 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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally the nomination is so flawed that is a disaster:
  1. Incomplete set of subcats Category:Musical theatre actors has 124 "fooian musical theatre actors" subcats, but only 7 are listed here. No rationale is given for omitting the others. If JPL wants all to be upmerged they all need to be tagged and listed. JPL has participated in many CfD discussions over more than a decade and there is no excuse for a nomination such as this to remove categories which have been neither tagged nor listed. No responsible closer could weigh the outcome as a consensus to remove without notification.
    Note too that if the nomination was implemented as proposed (with a limited set of subcats) then all the other by-nationality categories such as Category:British musical theatre actors would lose a common parent which would impede navigation.
  2. WikiProject Musical Theatre is very active and does a great job of developing the articles within their scope. (see e.g. 16 featured articles and 32 good articles). Before making a far-reaching proposal such as this JPL should have discussed the idea with those editors who have expertise in the topic. Instead he did not even notify the project.
  3. Incomplete set of merge targets. Every Category:Fooian musical theatre actors is a subcat of both Category:Fooian stage actors and Category:Fooian singers. If these cats are to be upmerged then it should be to both targets ... but this sloppy nomination lists neither target. No explanation is offered for this.

I now that JPL means well, but a multiply-flawed nomination such as this is a disruptive waste of time. I hope that @Johnpacklambert will withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 3 May 2018 (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:Sports events by city[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. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the content I have seen in the city categories could be grouped under competitions, bar 121st IOC Session which could be upmerged. This division between events and competitions does not aid navigation as duplicate content is spread across two trees. Non-competition sports events are so uncommon as not to warrant subdivision at city level. SFB 21:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we do not need duplicate categories and competitions is a more specific descriptor than events. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2018 (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:Actors by medium[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
similar categories for Albania - Austria
  • Nominator's rationale To begin with at a basic level overlap in mediums is very high among actors, especially among those who have careers that make them notable. I went through the first 109 entries in Category:American television actresses, of those only 2 had no overlap with any other actress category. Even at that one of them maybe needed to be put in Category:Web series actresses. This is the second problem, the lines betweeen these mediums are very fuzzy and not always defining to the acting. First off, are web-series just videos produced for YOuTube, or does this cover Orange is the New Black and every other TV show that was made by Netflix and other streaming services. What are made for TV movies, are they films or television? What about films made to be released on netflix? Then there is the actual acting overlap. Most of the main actors who appear in Star Treck the TV show go on to appear on the later films. Many actors who performed on stage repraise the same roles in a film. This is true of multiple musicals made in the 1960s. At the extreme we have examples like Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman where they made the pilot TV espisode in a way that if it didnt get taken by a network, they could market it as a film in Europe. It is quite common for people to have had significant roles in notable production in film/television and on the stage. Some of the other mediums are also fairly high in overlap, but these three have huge levels of overlap. For the purposes of this nomination I only focused on the three most common categories, film/TV and stage. Whether other sub-categorizations by medium work is a bit harder to gage, so I will leave it for seperate nominations. I know this nomination is not complete, but it was taking a long time, and I figured this was a good start. I wanted to nominate every category that is a direct overlap of nationality and film, television or stage acting (not sub-categories beyond that level though), but I also wanted to make sure there was some support before spending the huge amount of time to do all categories. This is averaging 9 categories a country and with over 100 countries this is probably in total over 900 categories, maybe over 1000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Johnpacklambert: is the aim of this different per country? These divisions make a lot more sense for countries where the given industry is highly developed, for example many American actors' careers tend to focus more on Hollywood film, or Broadway, or TV series. Of course there are overlaps, but there are clear differences (e.g. Megan Fox is not a stage actor) – perhaps stage is an outlier compared to the filmed mediums and should be excluded as it's quite a different art form? I do agree with your general point though.
  • Maybe a better approach would be to change the medium tree to a locational one rather than personal, i.e. things like Category:Film actors in the United States. Of most importance to notability is the combination of the medium and the location. Take a country like Albania: it has no highly developed acting industry, hence a lot of overlap for Albanian actors working in film/TV/stage and little point to categorisation by medium. Compare that India, which does have a highly developed film industry, so many Indian (and non-Indian) actors could be grouped together under Category:Film actors in India instead, many of whom do not do stage or TV. This will allow us to categorise people who work together in the same industry. Also, there is a big difference signified when an Albanian actor sits in Category:Albanian film actors compared to an Albanian actor who sits in Category:Film actors in the United States, yet we don't have a way to signify that at the moment. SFB 21:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above comments seem to ignore what I have identified, that the vast majority of television actors in the United States, well over 95%, act in other mediums as well. They ignore actually just about everything I said. Films become TV shows, TV shows become films, people move from broadway to Hollywood and back. There is too much overlap to make it worth categorizing. We do have categories like Category:Canadian expatriate male actors in the United States. Medium overlaps way too much to justify having such overalping categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: I think I've engaged with your proposal and suggested a different proposal to solve the same problem (combination of nationality and acting medium is not very defining). The above proposal gets rid of all the "national actor by medium" subcategories and replaces them with only "national actor" categories, supplemented by non-national categories specific to major industries/communities. If your proposal is hard-pushing to get rid stage acting as a vocation entirely from the category tree, then I apologise for having wasted time by engaging with such a discussion. SFB 19:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me see if I get this. If we have a woman who acted on Broadway, in Hollywood films, and in the West End of Britain, and they were Canadian. We would categorize them as Category:Canadian actresses (probably in the appropriate century sub-cat), then in 3 by community/area where they acted categories. This might be workable, although with the way so many American funded and directed films have been filmed internationally and with some films having complex situations of funding, nationality and main residence of director, etc, I am not sure the film lines would be easy to figure. I am also not sure exactly how those porposed categories would interact with current ones like Category:Canadian expatriate actresses in the United States. For the record the expatriate actor categories are not well developed, and the lines between three groups are even less clear. There are essentially three groups. To make this understandable I will prosent them going from one specific country to another, but they work with any two countries. You have in the case of Irish actors in the United States, those who are immigrants, those who are expatriates, and those who come to the US basically the minimum of time to film. Maureen O'Hara seems to have started as an expatriate, but I believe she eventually became a naturalized US citizen. Some immigrants are easy to spot, they came years before they started acting. However others it is a harder call to say if they were immigrants who spent their whole time acting, or expatriate actors who never ended their career. The line between being somewhere just to film and being there enough to count as an expatriate is a bit hard to. I think in general if someone appears in multiple stage productions that are based in a country, say on Broadway, they would count as an expatriate in the US if they are from elsewhere, but the filming side remains a bit harder to track. Clearly Mark Hamil does not become an expatriate in Tunisia because he filmed some scenes for Star Wars there, but has Henry Cavil been in the US enough during his film career to count as an expatriate here?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at an absolute minimum film/television/web series should all be merged, especially since the lines between a made-for-TV movie and a direct-to-video movie are blurred with the advent of films-made-for-netflix. However as I show with the muscial theatre actors, they have an over 70% overlap with TV/film actors, so this does not seem a strong outlyier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Lambert is trying to empty the categories while the CfD is ongoing. Probably worth checking more of their edits on this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I object to being refered to in the plural. The right way to speak of me is "his edits on this."John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I object to people trying to WP:GAME their own CfD's by doing this. Looks like Lambert is continuing with their disruption on this matter. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree the difference in acting on stage vs. film isn't so great that one cannot move between them; the argument between film and tv is even less. For the same reason we don't have Category:Clay court tennis players, or divvy up cricket players between whether they play 5 day matches or just the one day sorts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes there is some overlap. But a significant proportion of actors devote themelves predominantly to one medium with occasional forays into others. The problem here is that too actors are being wrongly categorised in a medium where they made only rare appearances contrary to WP:CATDEF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose (Note that I already !voted above)
This proposal is huge. There are 26900 pages in Category:American actors by medium+subcats, 11453 in Category:British actors by medium+subcats and 6949 in Category:Indian actors by medium+subcats; worldwide, there are must be well over 100,000 articles in these categories.
Such a massive change would be very very hard to reverse, so it should proceed only if there is a clear and broad consensus to do so.
However this nomination cannot build that clear and broad consensus. It lists only 79 of the 2751 subcats of Category:Actors by medium, which is only 2.5%. No WikiProjects have been notified. After 5 days only 4 editors have commented on the nomination.
That is a completely inadequate basis for such a huge change.
If the nominator wants to pursue this idea, then the way to build that clear and broad consensus is to start with an RFC and notify it widely. Host it at WP:VPP, notify all relevant WikiProjects, and allow it to run for the usual 28 days of an RFC.
If the RFC demonstrates a consensus for change then come back to CfD with a comprehensive and complete nomination (rather than a 2.5% sample) to implement that consensus.
This sample nom would cause huge problems even if it was implemented only on the categories listed. For example Category:Film actors has 14 subcategories. @Johnpacklambert proposes upmerging only 2 of those subcats and then dumping the other 12 into Category:Actors which is a recipe for swamping Category:Actors. He proposes to do the same for Category:Stage actors and Category:Television actors and for the gendered subcats of each which make an undifferentiated mess. I don't support the substantive idea behind this but I do see that the nom has a genuine concern; however this nomination is no way to address it.
So JPL: please just withdraw this hasty and ill-considered sample nomination. It is a simply useless way of approaching such a big issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contrary to BFG's claims, this has been posted to the film wikiproject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • JPL, your post[2] at WT:FILM didn't even link to this discussion. And what about stage and Television? Why not notify those projects? (No your post [3] at WT:TV is no good: you didn't even link to the discussions)
Now have you have opened an RFC at WT:FILM#RfC:_should_actors_by_split_by_medium? ... while this discussion is still open. So now we have two separate discussions considering essentially the same proposal (see WP:MULTI for why that is a bad idea). And both discussions are botched: your post[4] at WP:VPP also has no link. Instead you make an WP:ABF about my objection and ramble on about the substantive issue rather than linking to a centralised discussion.
WP:COMPETENCE is required, esp when making such a far-reaching proposal. You have been editing for nearly 10 years and after that long it is amazing that you cannot or will not complete the simple task of posting a notification which is a) concise b) neutral and c) includes a link. You have managed zero out of three. Astonishing ... and disruptive. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the reasons BHG has said, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the distinctions help editors searching for specific categories of actors/actresses such as French television actresses where they are not interested in French actresses who only acted in films and there are many many similar examples of where these distinctive categories are helpful. Upmerging these categories would make searching more difficult and make a big timesink for many editors searching for specific types of actors/actresses so basically it is an unhelpful and retrograde move, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also as this affects tens of thousands of categories a sample of a hundred is too small, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there is an RFC on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC: should actors by split by medium? Atlantic306 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as these kinds of distinction help all Wikipedia users (including just-plain-readers, as well as editors) who are searching for specific categories of whatever. Whenever a category contains thousands of entries, it's only sensible to sub-categorise along the most salient points of difference, as this aids in the search. yoyo (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2018 (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:European "Years"[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 to Category:Themed years of the European Union. – Fayenatic London 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am not sure that "scary quotes" are appropriate here. And it seems that EU agrees with me. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2018 (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:Literary gatherings in Sindh[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. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Literary gatherings" does not make any sense. Saqib (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2018 (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:Filmed deaths during crashes[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. – Fayenatic London 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless name doesnt help navigation. Created recently as a sub-cat of Category:Filmed accidental deaths, the creator has moved cats from this to the new sub-cat. I have tried to parse the category name but still doesnt make sense in English or in the articles it is being used for (not all but mainly transport accidents). MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion Per nom, a distinction without a difference that has led to editors spamming the cat based on whether a vehicle/plane/train/baloon hit something and somebody died, generally morbid without assisting the reader, unless one is just looking for ghoulish videos on YouTube. I have reservations about the whole "filmed deaths" tree - I think it ought to be considerably pruned, as people have been adding it to every event in which someone died, and it's becoming meaningless. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with better defined/more specific category(ies) – agree that the current category name is not very meaningful. A possible replacement for most of the articles currently in there could be Category:Filmed fatal air accidents, and similar categories for crashes of other means of transportation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2018 (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:2nd millennium in the Republic of Siena[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. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the history of the Republic of Siena lasted too short to subdivide it in millennia. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I am of the view that we virtually NEVER need millennium categories, as there have not been enough centuries in recorded history to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2018 (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.

Republic of Siena[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. As for the WP:SMALLCAT defence by user:Tim!, the overall hierarchy is no longer "accepted" where it produces isolated micro structures like this, per many CFDs over the last three years (and despite my own preferences). As for the objection to merging to "Italy" by user:Greyshark09, the hierarchy for long-ago establishments in Italy exists and has not been nominated for deletion, so it is proper to merge into that hierarchy for now. Once those rationales are set aside, the remaining arguments provide sufficient consensus for the nomination to proceed. – Fayenatic London 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly just one article per category. This is follow-up on a previous nomination that was withdrawn as too broad (too many countries involved). Also relevant is this other discussion in which was decided to keep the Italy tree for pre-1860 categories. That implies that Italy categories must also be listed as a target here in this merge nomination. Note that the 1520s category has only one merge target, because the one article of that category is already in Category:1525 establishments in Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I hope those deletions are also upmerges to relevant century categories rather than pure deletions. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only 4 articles in this whole tree and they are merged per the first 4 lines of the nomination. The remainder consists of container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SMALLCAT states "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". and these are part of large overall scheme. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not part of an overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, we only accept trees like this if they are decently populated. Most countries, especially of this size, especially in the Middle Ages, do not have a tree by year. See as a random example Category:1255 by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as nom. At the bottom of this bush (it is not a tree), there are just four articles, which are giving rise to 16 categories. That is totally over the top. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Query - how is this different to the logic of the Austria-Hungary nomination?Laurel Lodged (talk)
  • This nomination concerns the whole tree of Years in the Republic Siena, while the problem with Austria was there are quite a few (sub)categories of Years in Austria missing in the nomination that were either before or during the period of the categories that were nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion then is small nominations will succeed but large nominations will fail because nobody has the time to do all the nominations in large trees. What a depressing thought. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the CfD logs for the last 6 months show that plenty of very large nominations have been made and succeeded, so the assertion that nobody has the time to do all the nominations in large trees is demonstrably false.
What Laurel Lodged actually means is that Laurel Lodged lacks the technical skills (mostly simple regex) to prepare large nominations efficiently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to oppose. I have supported many such nominations in the past, especially when prepared as comprehensively and accurately as this. (@Marcocapelle is the master of big nominations). The core rationale is obviously correct: that by-year categories for small territories before the modern era tend to be small.
However, I am increasingly concerned by the effect of these merges, which is to replace one category on an article with 3 categories. This causes clutter (which imepedes navigation) and overall makes for a lot of confusion.
It also makes it much more difficult for editors to accurately categorise an article. e.g. instead of placing an article in Category:1240 establishments in the Republic of Siena this merger means that the same article shoud go in Category:1240 establishments in Europe, Category:1240s establishments in Italy and Category:13th-century establishments in the Republic of Siena. How many editors will know how to do that accurately? I suspect very few.
So I am now inclined to think that the cure may be worse than the disease. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point of departure is that editors need to check which category/categories exist, especially in case a 'first guess' category appears not to exist. This applies regardless which topic or which tree it is about. Also I suspect (but can't verify) that most new articles will be created by taking the format of a related article as a start for the format of the new article, including the categories listed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: This is interesting. I opposed Marcocapelle's early nominations of this kind for similar reasons. In earlier years such categories would have been kept per the exception to WP:SMALLCAT, i.e. as part a widespread scheme of categorisation. However, the editors who attend CFD over the last few years have been consistently in favour of these nominations. I stopped opposing them, mainly because I was doing a lot of CFD closures and therefore could not also participate in the discussions, and have put in many hours to implement them tidily, even though I would have preferred to keep the original structure. May I point out that your objections equally apply to Elections in Ireland by year, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 21? – Fayenatic London 07:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - obviously there was no Republic of Italy in the Middle Ages (not to confuse with the Italian peninsula). When people say "Italy" they tend to refer to either modern state or the geographic peninsula, however article Italy is specifically about the state. "In Italy" hence refers to modern Italian Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about your vote @Greyshark09:  ? It's looks like your intent might have been to "Support". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2018 (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:Norman religious buildings[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 to Category:English churches with Norman architecture, splitting to a new parent Category:Churches with Norman architecture for the ones not in England. I acknowledge that these names are not consistent with other categories, so they might be considered again later. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to describe the scope of the category more clearly. Norman (without Anglo-) wrongly suggests that they were established in Normandy by the Normans who settled there in the 10th century, rather than in England in a later period. And they are all church buildings, so why not mention that in the category name? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are currently not all in England the category should be split. It does not make sense to lump church buildings together of different time and different space. By the way, the article Norman architecture says the term is in particular used for English Romanesque architecture, so I presume the contemporary church buildings in France are called Romanesque rather than Norman (e.g. [5] although this may not be the best source). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel entirely free to split it. The Normans were renowned for their church buildings ([see Google search]) and it makes complete sense to categorise them together. Oculi (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am bit confused by this discussion. The category description says it is for religious buildings of the Norman era and that is why I started this nomination. So is this about an era (in England) or is it about an architectural style? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both really - unlike the Victorians they only had one style to choose from, & the style & dynasty coincide closely enough. That's the way sources treat the matter. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somehow. They are all churches. The term "Norman" for the architectural style is peculiar to England. Elsewhere, the style is called Romanesque. Category:Norman architecture church buildings in England would probably do it. It should be noted that documentary evidence of the building date is uncommon, so that the dating to usually from the architectural style, which did not necessarily end on precisely 1154. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: some of these buildings are not in England but in Sicily! The category is apparently for Norman-built not Norman-style. Rmhermen (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles should be purged. And we do not have any (other) categories of buildings by ethnicity, that is an odd intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, it follows common usage in architectural history in English, where buildings in England, Ireland and the appropriate parts of Italy are "Norman", but in France "Romanesque" (except perhaps in Normandy itself). But it is probably best to narrow the category name to England, and ensure the others are in Category:Norman architecture in Italy Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems only to be one at present -St Garmon's Church, Llanfechain, "described by Haslam as the most complete Norman church remaining in Montgomeryshire" says the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that the most Norman of all Norman religious buildings are in Category:Romanesque architecture in Normandy, correctly per the convention mentioned above. If this category was kept that should be added as a sub-cat though. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Either Peterkingiron's or Johnbod's alternative is fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2018 (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:Knights de Brus[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an odd and problematic category. It only has one entry, who could easily be added to the supercategory "French knights". We do not normally categorise knights by what family they belong to. PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don’t know anything about the naming of French knights, but I do know that the purpose of categories is to group related pages for easy navigation. A category with one page in it does not accomplish that and is therefore not appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is a wholly unnecessary category. We do not normally allow categories by surname, which it what this is trying to be. Parenting the one article as French is inappropriate: he was born in Normandy and should be a Norman knight, if anything. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To complicate matters further, I can't find a clear source that he was a knight, although I suspect he probably was. PatGallacher (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2018 (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/2018_April_28&oldid=1125231999"