Category:Volleyball clubs disestablished in 2018[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.
Delete per nom. Seems the first one of the style created for volleyball, with just one entry. There are many defunct tournaments/events each year but defunct clubs are always going to be a very small number each year. As such a sub-cat of Category:Volleyball clubs eg Category:Defunct volleyball clubs would seem more sensible than a year by year category. Nigej (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2019 (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The result of the discussion was:speedy close / withdrawn. The correct nomination is on the next day's page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only nationality subcategory of Category:Researchers. There is a well populated category tree of academics. Academics are not always researchers, but most of them are, and there are subcats for administrators. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi knows what I meant! I withdraw this, which is the wrong way round. Rathfelder (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2019 (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:Christian denominations active in Germany[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:upmerge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the scope of this category largely overlaps with its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I just do not see a justification of categorizing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by every country it has a presence in. This is the type of thing that can be handled by a list, but not an article. Even more so because categories always apply. So for example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article would have to be put in categories where it once operated but does not currently. This is just a headache causing mess as a category, but manageable and doable with by country list articles, that can specify things like times of operation, number and percentage of adherents, number of congregations and related useful statistics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you mean further upmerge, don't you? Without merging, all subcategories become orphaned, and that is probably not the intention. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2019 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the articles are not really a mishmash, because they are about the first edition of a series of events. As such they do not fit in Category:Introductions, Category:Establishments, or Category:Debuts. I have added "weak" in my oppose because I wonder if this is perhaps a too trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first, I was going to say WP:ARBITRARYCAT, but that doesn't quite fit. This is so broad as to be non-defining for a substantial number of articles that fit the inclusion criteria, but I don't think that's the best argument against this category either. Setting aside specific guidelines, categories are intended to bring together a selection of articles that readers or editors would wish to navigate between. This is highly unlikely to do that, per RevelationDirect above. ~ Rob13Talk 05:52, 26 February 2019 (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.
Delete per extensive precedent deleting categories for specific users. VegaDark (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge all per this concurrent CfD with similar arguments. ~ Rob13Talk 07:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 (Roman Catholic) subcategory. See also this earlier nomination which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "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".
I checked the first ten categories nominated. All but one of those has a subcat for churches of RC denomination. Whatever your intention here, the effect of this merger is that non-Catholic churches in those cities will not be categorised as churches within the same area. That is not an NPOV outcome. (If your aim was to promote the hardline Catholic view that non-Catholic churches are not "real" churches, this would be a good way of doing it).
This whole process of trying to rip out layers of container categories is fundamentally mistaken, because it pointlessly disrupts the consistency of the category system. That makes it harder to maintain and to navigate.
By removing this layer from cities where we do already have a reasonable number of articles per city, a reader looking at the set of churches-by-city categories would get the false impression that there are few or no articles on churches in that city.
The category system is a directional lattice based on consistency. Removing intermediate parts of that lattice because the article structure is underdeveloped undermines one of the pillars of that consistency principle, with no advantage to readers or editors. It is a pointless, disruptive make-work, both now and in the future when those categories are needed. See WP:DEMOLISH. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all BHG comments "By removing this layer from cities where we do already have a reasonable number of articles per city, a reader looking at the set of churches-by-city categories would get the false impression that there are few or no articles on churches in that city."; the whole point of the nomination is that we do not have a reasonable number of articles per city. So for a reader get the impression that there are few or no articles on churches in that city would be entirely accurate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most/Neutral on Bologna, Brescia, Palermo, Pisa, Ravenna & Turin Adding a navigation layer for towns we only have Catholic church articles for doesn't aid navigation. Not sure if I agree with BHG's argument for keeping a parent category with one non-Catholic article or not, but there's no reason to keep it for the the ones with zero. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge all per this concurrent CfD with similar arguments. ~ Rob13Talk 07:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "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".
I checked all the categories nominated. All but one of those has a subcat for churches of RC denomination. Whatever your intention here, the effect of this merger is that non-Catholic churches in those cities will not be categorised as churches within the same area. That is not an NPOV outcome. (If your aim was to promote the hardline Catholic view that non-Catholic churches are not "real" churches, this would be a good way of doing it).
This whole process of trying to rip out layers of container categories is fundamentally mistaken, because it pointlessly disrupts the consistency of the category system. That makes it harder to maintain and to navigate.
By removing this layer from cities where we do already have a reasonable number of articles per city, a reader looking at the set of churches-by-city categories would get the false impression that there are few or no articles on churches in that city.
The category system is a directional lattice based on consistency. Removing intermediate parts of that lattice because the article structure is underdeveloped undermines one of the pillars of that consistency principle, with no advantage to readers or editors. It is a pointless, disruptive make-work, both now and in the future when those categories are needed. See WP:DEMOLISH. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All A single editor creating tons of extra categories does not make "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Not a signle one of these categories has non-Catholic content and add an unnecessary layers to navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All per nom and RevelationDirect. Chicken Licken can relax - the sky won't fall. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support the fact of the matter is that most non-Catholic Church buildings in Italy are not notable, dividing them into categories by city makes no sense and just hinders navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. While the numbers are even here, the strength of arguments is rather clearly in favor of a merge. Editors who voted "keep" successfully argued that being in the WWE Hall of Fame is defining, but none attempted an argument about why being inducted specifically in a given year is defining. The argument related to the size of a combined category is extremely weak; a category with 191 articles is downright typical. The unrefuted arguments in favor of a merge are supported strongly by our guidelines. ~ Rob13Talk 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's more in response to Marcocapelle's question. I believe it was Galatz who split them by year after the main category was filled will all of the individual inductees. LM2000 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe it was
*Treker who broke them out but I support the split. Looking at it, a combined category would have 191 pages in it, the split appears warranted to me. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes it IS defining as I am sure that one day there will be a REAL PHYSICAL WWE hall of fame building, and the years should be kept split up as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All The Keep votes above establish why being inducted into the WWE hall of fame is defining. None establish why it's defining if you were inducted in 1994 or 2001 though. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Namiba and RevelationDirect. BTW, the continued obsession in this walled gardencorner of the encyclopedia with "defining" still rings pretty hollow when we continue to have countless biographical articles with subjects whose notability is not defined by anything having to do with their birthplace yet is defined by activities in other places, all the while editors continue to mindlessly categorize those articles solely according to their birthplace and not according to those other places and continue to make piss-poor excuses to justify the practice. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:27, 18 February 2019 (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: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON and numerous precedent at CfD. Typically, a few members of the band would need articles and perhaps a discography page exists too before the need for an eponymous parent category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:39, 4 January 2019 (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.
