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: Opposed speedy on grounds of changing a topic category to a set category, so moved to full discussion. Contents of the category and the definition of the category itself are "inductees to the USHHoF", and the other subcats of
Category:Hall of fame inductees are "Foo inductees", so... Rename as nominator.
The BushrangerOne ping only23:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Breaking out the inductees would leave this cat with only 1 or 2 entries and no hope for expansion. While we can also figure out how to organize the containers, it is clear both that this category needs renaming, and that there is no real value in splitting it.
Resolute19:28, 30 July 2012 (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:Walhalla enshrinees
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: This category, for people honored in the
Walhalla memorial, reflects a characteristic that is
not defining for most of the people who are categorized.
The Walhalla memorial was completed in the mid-19th century and honors giants of German(ic) history from the past two millenia. While it may or may not be a defining honor for those who lived and died after its construction, it is by no means defining for people such as
Arminius (died 21);
Alaric I, King of the Visigoths (died 410);
Theodoric the Great (died 526);
Alboin, King of the Lombards (died 572);
Charlemagne (died 814);
Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (died 899);
Johannes Gutenberg (died 1468);
Nicolaus Copernicus (died 1543);
Martin Luther (died 1546);
Johannes Kepler (died 1630);
Peter Paul Rubens (died 1640);
Charles X Gustav, King of Sweden (died 1660);
Frederick the Great (died 1786); and
Holy Roman EmperorsArnulf of Carinthia (died 899),
Otto I (died 973),
Conrad II (died 1039),
Henry III (died 1056),
Frederick I (died 1190),
Frederick II (died 1250),
Maximilian I (died 1519), and
Charles V (died 1558). These people and most others on the list are remembered as artists, innovators, philosophers, scientists, generals, kings, and emperors, who shaped the course of European and world history, and not as a result of any honor, no matter how prestigious, bestowed upon them centuries after their deaths.
The main article contains a full, detailed list, and this is a much more suitable method than a category of storing this information. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:13, 27 July 2012 (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.
LGBT-related films by religion
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 per Black Falcon, and possibly purge. There seems to be both a desire to keep the content and a willingness to change the category names to match the surrounding categories, which may result in some films needing to leave the category tree.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep unless a very convincing proposal is made to delete the entire tree of films and religion. I see no reason to single out LGBT films, and the intersection is certainly encyclopedic. The "films do not have religions" issue should be addressed by a rename proposal, and films that do not belong should simply be removed, rather than being used as an excuse to delete good categories. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
16:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep (or rename preposition) as per roscelese. There are lots of LGBT-related films relating to religion, exploring the intersection of LGBT issues and a particular religion. As for the "films don't have religion" argument, maybe you just want to propose a change in preposition -- from "by" to "about" as in the main category tree. --
Lquilter (
talk)
15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
split/rename/? There seem to be two if not three quite distinct categories here: one set of films which specifically deal with homosexuality and religion as a primary subject (most of which are documentaries), and others where either religion is the main theme and homosexuality enters as a complication, or where homosexuality is the main theme and religion is a side issue. None of members of the existing Christian subcategory are Christian films per se; they are all secular films with religious and homosexual themes. A more accurate name would therefore be
Category:Films with Christian and LGBT themes. The phrase "LGBT-related" is weaselly in context, tending to suggest that any film with a priest and
Rock Hudson in it would qualify.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep and possibly rename Definitely a notable intersection of two major facets of a human being, their sexuality/gender and their spiritual/religious life. The two often being in conflict with conservative religious traditions.
Insomesia (
talk)
08:34, 6 August 2012 (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:Media in New Jersey
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, but renominate the entire set of
Category:American media by state subcategories. This is just to align the New Jersey category with the others in the category, where it indeed does stick out like a sore thumb. The entire set of state categories should be nominated for renaming, where the discussion can center on whether any of them have the right name. This is only to avoid the problem that Bushranger describes, where if the rename doesn't pass, we're not back here again discussing this outlier.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category was renamed out of process last year. I undid the manual rename, but was reverted as creating a "pointless circular redirect." Rename to return the category to its original name and to align it with the other members of
Category:American media by state (from which it has been inexplicably removed). -
Eureka Lott18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: which naming convention we use doesn't matter to me, but it's silly to have one category that doesn't align with the others. Any of you are welcome to nominate the other 49 categories, but I don't have time to do that. -
Eureka Lott01:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for now. While the oppose !voters do have a point, the fact is that (a) right now, this category stands out like a sore thumb in its tree, which gives it an uncyclopedic and unprofessional appearance, and (b) assuming that a CfD to change the rest to the X of Y format would succeed is
WP:CRYSTAL. Best to go ahead and rename this one to the current standard of this tree, and then nominate the entire tree for renaming to the X of Y format. -
The BushrangerOne ping only04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose in concurrence w/ reasoning above. The subtle difference between NJ media and media in NJ makes the latter more appropriate as parental cat. (Besides, making this wrong doesn't make the others right or more encyclopedic.)
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:Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme
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: Okay, what on Earth is this, and why has it been here since 2007? There is no article for
Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme, so my best guess is this is an article that got created in category space, so it needs moving, and maybe should or should not continue as a category.
Courcelles18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. If it's a misplaced article, it's unreferenced, and I have looked without success for sources. The category creator has been blocked, and the articles under "see also" were deleted at AFDs. –
FayenaticLondon20:08, 28 July 2012 (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:Irwin Allen productions
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: This category contains both TV shows and films, and we normally split those. The shows seem all done by the Television Productions studio, while the films are just attributed to Allen, as far as I can tell. This category is populated by a template which will have to be manually broken up.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Anyway, so much for my memory, none of this turns out to have much to do with this nom, except that it does show precedent for such splitting (Mark VII Limited being one example). - jc3705:52, 3 August 2012 (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:930 establishments in North Korea
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.
Category:MC2
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.
Category:Entities with Welsh names
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. This seems to be a rather arbitrary set of inclusion criteria and is likely not defining. What do buildings have in common with organizations?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:45, 27 July 2012 (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:People from Sharon, Kansas
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.
Upmerge there has developed a consensus that we do not need to categorize people from every possible place. The agreement seems to be we do by county, and subdivide from there if a specific location has a noticable number of people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:05, 29 July 2012 (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:People from Crawford, Nebraska
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.
Categorization of where people are from is done by county unless the town or city a person is from has enough notable people to justify its own category. Two isn't enough.
...William13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:FAIL. Sorry, I don't see the policy that relates to this issue about how many entries a location category should have so it can be created. Try again. Lugnuts (
talk)
08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I think keep would be best, since the county's other incorporated town has its own category and keeping Crawford's category just seems more organized. But then again, I'm the one who created the category in the first place.
Chevsapher (
talk)
19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge the consensus is that two people is not enough to create a seperate distinction, at least where there is a county to put the people in. There is no clear indication what the actual minimum is and how the total number of people from the county works into the equation, but it seems clear we will not keep categories from a place in a county with just two people in the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:09, 29 July 2012 (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: Opposed speedy on grounds of changing a topic category to a set category, so moved to full discussion. Contents of the category and the definition of the category itself are "inductees to the USHHoF", and the other subcats of
Category:Hall of fame inductees are "Foo inductees", so... Rename as nominator.
The BushrangerOne ping only23:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Breaking out the inductees would leave this cat with only 1 or 2 entries and no hope for expansion. While we can also figure out how to organize the containers, it is clear both that this category needs renaming, and that there is no real value in splitting it.
Resolute19:28, 30 July 2012 (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:Walhalla enshrinees
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: This category, for people honored in the
Walhalla memorial, reflects a characteristic that is
not defining for most of the people who are categorized.
The Walhalla memorial was completed in the mid-19th century and honors giants of German(ic) history from the past two millenia. While it may or may not be a defining honor for those who lived and died after its construction, it is by no means defining for people such as
Arminius (died 21);
Alaric I, King of the Visigoths (died 410);
Theodoric the Great (died 526);
Alboin, King of the Lombards (died 572);
Charlemagne (died 814);
Alfred the Great, King of Wessex (died 899);
Johannes Gutenberg (died 1468);
Nicolaus Copernicus (died 1543);
Martin Luther (died 1546);
Johannes Kepler (died 1630);
Peter Paul Rubens (died 1640);
Charles X Gustav, King of Sweden (died 1660);
Frederick the Great (died 1786); and
Holy Roman EmperorsArnulf of Carinthia (died 899),
Otto I (died 973),
Conrad II (died 1039),
Henry III (died 1056),
Frederick I (died 1190),
Frederick II (died 1250),
Maximilian I (died 1519), and
Charles V (died 1558). These people and most others on the list are remembered as artists, innovators, philosophers, scientists, generals, kings, and emperors, who shaped the course of European and world history, and not as a result of any honor, no matter how prestigious, bestowed upon them centuries after their deaths.
The main article contains a full, detailed list, and this is a much more suitable method than a category of storing this information. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:13, 27 July 2012 (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.
LGBT-related films by religion
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 per Black Falcon, and possibly purge. There seems to be both a desire to keep the content and a willingness to change the category names to match the surrounding categories, which may result in some films needing to leave the category tree.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep unless a very convincing proposal is made to delete the entire tree of films and religion. I see no reason to single out LGBT films, and the intersection is certainly encyclopedic. The "films do not have religions" issue should be addressed by a rename proposal, and films that do not belong should simply be removed, rather than being used as an excuse to delete good categories. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
16:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep (or rename preposition) as per roscelese. There are lots of LGBT-related films relating to religion, exploring the intersection of LGBT issues and a particular religion. As for the "films don't have religion" argument, maybe you just want to propose a change in preposition -- from "by" to "about" as in the main category tree. --
Lquilter (
talk)
15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
split/rename/? There seem to be two if not three quite distinct categories here: one set of films which specifically deal with homosexuality and religion as a primary subject (most of which are documentaries), and others where either religion is the main theme and homosexuality enters as a complication, or where homosexuality is the main theme and religion is a side issue. None of members of the existing Christian subcategory are Christian films per se; they are all secular films with religious and homosexual themes. A more accurate name would therefore be
Category:Films with Christian and LGBT themes. The phrase "LGBT-related" is weaselly in context, tending to suggest that any film with a priest and
Rock Hudson in it would qualify.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep and possibly rename Definitely a notable intersection of two major facets of a human being, their sexuality/gender and their spiritual/religious life. The two often being in conflict with conservative religious traditions.
Insomesia (
talk)
08:34, 6 August 2012 (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:Media in New Jersey
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, but renominate the entire set of
Category:American media by state subcategories. This is just to align the New Jersey category with the others in the category, where it indeed does stick out like a sore thumb. The entire set of state categories should be nominated for renaming, where the discussion can center on whether any of them have the right name. This is only to avoid the problem that Bushranger describes, where if the rename doesn't pass, we're not back here again discussing this outlier.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category was renamed out of process last year. I undid the manual rename, but was reverted as creating a "pointless circular redirect." Rename to return the category to its original name and to align it with the other members of
Category:American media by state (from which it has been inexplicably removed). -
Eureka Lott18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: which naming convention we use doesn't matter to me, but it's silly to have one category that doesn't align with the others. Any of you are welcome to nominate the other 49 categories, but I don't have time to do that. -
Eureka Lott01:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename for now. While the oppose !voters do have a point, the fact is that (a) right now, this category stands out like a sore thumb in its tree, which gives it an uncyclopedic and unprofessional appearance, and (b) assuming that a CfD to change the rest to the X of Y format would succeed is
WP:CRYSTAL. Best to go ahead and rename this one to the current standard of this tree, and then nominate the entire tree for renaming to the X of Y format. -
The BushrangerOne ping only04:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose in concurrence w/ reasoning above. The subtle difference between NJ media and media in NJ makes the latter more appropriate as parental cat. (Besides, making this wrong doesn't make the others right or more encyclopedic.)
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:Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme
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: Okay, what on Earth is this, and why has it been here since 2007? There is no article for
Malaysia Foreign Talent Scheme, so my best guess is this is an article that got created in category space, so it needs moving, and maybe should or should not continue as a category.
Courcelles18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. If it's a misplaced article, it's unreferenced, and I have looked without success for sources. The category creator has been blocked, and the articles under "see also" were deleted at AFDs. –
FayenaticLondon20:08, 28 July 2012 (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:Irwin Allen productions
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: This category contains both TV shows and films, and we normally split those. The shows seem all done by the Television Productions studio, while the films are just attributed to Allen, as far as I can tell. This category is populated by a template which will have to be manually broken up.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Anyway, so much for my memory, none of this turns out to have much to do with this nom, except that it does show precedent for such splitting (Mark VII Limited being one example). - jc3705:52, 3 August 2012 (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:930 establishments in North Korea
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.
Category:MC2
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.
Category:Entities with Welsh names
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. This seems to be a rather arbitrary set of inclusion criteria and is likely not defining. What do buildings have in common with organizations?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:45, 27 July 2012 (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:People from Sharon, Kansas
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.
Upmerge there has developed a consensus that we do not need to categorize people from every possible place. The agreement seems to be we do by county, and subdivide from there if a specific location has a noticable number of people.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:05, 29 July 2012 (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:People from Crawford, Nebraska
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.
Categorization of where people are from is done by county unless the town or city a person is from has enough notable people to justify its own category. Two isn't enough.
...William13:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:FAIL. Sorry, I don't see the policy that relates to this issue about how many entries a location category should have so it can be created. Try again. Lugnuts (
talk)
08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I think keep would be best, since the county's other incorporated town has its own category and keeping Crawford's category just seems more organized. But then again, I'm the one who created the category in the first place.
Chevsapher (
talk)
19:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge the consensus is that two people is not enough to create a seperate distinction, at least where there is a county to put the people in. There is no clear indication what the actual minimum is and how the total number of people from the county works into the equation, but it seems clear we will not keep categories from a place in a county with just two people in the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:09, 29 July 2012 (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.