Category:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2012
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Nominator's rationale: Category is time-sensitive and now outdated. All stations in category have opened and should be categorized as such. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
22:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
rename/merge per Vegaswikian1. Delays are common and there aren't so many new stations being built that we need to break them out by year. Personally I would prefer
Category:Railway stations being constructed with appropriate pruning given that many station proposals come to naught because the associated line is never built.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as obsolete. Either the stations opened and will have moved to Stations opened in 2012 or they were delayed and should be in the equivalent 2013 category; or they offend
WP:CRYSTAL, being projects that never got under way, having never been funded, and the articles should never have eben created.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Assuming they they have not been cancelled or are being completed this year is not sourced or based on anything. We should not be guessing.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't understand Vegaswikian1's proposal, as the rename target
Category:Proposed railway stations already exists, and I'm not clear what is meant by "Merge in...". Does it mean that we should upmerge this and
Category:Proposed railway stations by date and all its yearly sub-cats into
Category:Proposed railway stations? I think that would not be a good outcome, as the contents are also sub-categorised by location. Instead, if we don't want to keep the analysis by date, we should do a check that all the contents are categorised as proposed railway stations by location, and delete rather than merge the date categories. –
FayenaticLondon06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Having run into several building categories for buildings planned or being built or similar, there is a failure to update the articles. It is not uncommon to see someone create a series of articles and then no one compels by to update the material. When you can find sources, it is not uncommon for the completion date to move several years into the future. It is also not uncommon to see these projects get cancelled. So using your
local crystal ball, even with sources that commonly mimic press releases, should be discouraged. Also, is it defining when these are suppose to open? Or are we just grouping these for convenience?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't know the history or anything about the stations in this category. I just came across it and noticed it was outdated so I brought its attention here. I don't like the idea of
Category:Railway stations being constructed because this implies the stations are being constructed at the moment, when a station could be planned and it has yet to begin construction. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
21:15, 24 May 2013 (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:Computer pioneers
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 is problematic for many reasons - but the main one is POV. Computing and computer science continue to evolve, so the inventor of Twitter may well be a "Pioneer" in the 140-character message but I'm not sure if that was the intent of this category. As you click on various bios, they are often of people who did some work in the 50s/60s/70s, but I still fail to see how this is defining, and why *everyone* who worked during that era should thus not be awarded as a computing pioneer. I think one of its subcats, Internet pioneers, can be a bit better defined, as there was a period where the fundamental structures of the internet were being created, but computing started, well, way back in time, and things are obviously still progressing apace. I don't know what else to do with this category but delete it - otherwise it will continue to accumulate bios of people who see themselves as pioneers (and indeed, they may have been, in whatever particular sub-part of computing they were involved in). I realize there is a whole pioneers tree, I'm not ready to address that, but this one doesn't work. There is a
List of pioneers in computer science which could be better sourced and populated, so I'd say we listify the key members of this cat and delete due to subjective criteria for inclusion.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep it is clearly not "everyone" who worked in that era, but those who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Seems a pretty slim argument to delete. Of course there is judgment needed to some extent, but the category is not "good" or "bad" pioneers. At most maybe rename it to a less judgmental term like "early computer people" but that sounds odd. "Computer pioneer" seems fairly natural to me.
W Nowicki (
talk)
19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - The delete comments here apply to pretty much everything in the parent category
Category:Pioneers by field (and of course the child category,
Category:Internet pioneers). I don't think we should single out computer pioneers. I agree that the idea of "pioneers" has definitional problems, and I don't personally like the word, but there's something here with merit. For one thing, it's useful in the "history" category tree to have a subcategory of notable figures in early computing. ... Anyway, as I'm writing all this I'm thinking maybe it's just better to do it with an article or list. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I went after this one as it was the biggest and most full of cruft, and seemed to be stretching the definition the most. Based on what we do here, I agree, we should probably reformulate the rest of the tree. --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:08, 22 May 2013 (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:New York City Football Club
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: There are only two entries here on the exact same topic, both of which were created today. It says they aren't even due to begin playing their game until 2015. Anything could happen before then. Not all teams or organisations are given their own category anyway.
86.40.104.50 (
talk)
19:45, 21 May 2013 (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:Royal Preparatory School
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:Harvard Centennial Medal recipients
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 -- a non-defining honor from a graduate school to its alumni. This award from the Harvard Grad School of Arts & Sciences was established in 1989 and awarded from 2-4 graduates each year (7 in first year). The awardees are a disparate lot of folks, many of whom have lots of other award-winner categories on their articles, like
Leon Kass,
Margaret Atwood,
Elaine Pagels ... This is better maintained in the list in the article for the
Harvard Centennial Medal which can include footnotes, dates, and other information ....
Lquilter (
talk)
10:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per BHG's comment immediately above. If we are even remotely serious about eliminating categories for minor awards, this one should be pretty near the top of the list for pruning.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:42, 30 May 2013 (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:Members of the Nation of Gods and Earths
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:Qing Dynasty History
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.
Merge to
Cateogry:Qing Dynasty. However I half wonder if we should rename that
Category:Qing China, because it does not seem this is meant to be limited to things related directly to the dynasty as such. Since the Qing were in power from 1644 to 1912, they also partly overlap with the 17th-century and 20th-century cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:48, 3 June 2013 (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:Preachers
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. Re-created in 2011 after deletion at
CFD 2007 Nov 3. Sparsely-populated category with no stated criteria for inclusion. Although a few of the members were especially noted for preaching, according to citations, I do not even think it would be helpful to use these to start a list. Very many of
Category:Religious leaders are preachers. There is already
Category:Sermon writers and I have added a few members of the nominated category into that. There is no need for a merger as all the current members are suitably categorised as clergy, chaplains, missionaries etc. –
FayenaticLondon07:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete To make things real fun, we could argue that virtually all active members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to how the Church is set-up. On a more clear level, most people who are notable for preaching in any denomination hold clearly defined positions in the denomination that are better categorized in other ways.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:52, 3 June 2013 (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:Film directors from Europe
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: Since when do we categorize by continent? A whole bunch of these "X by continent" by this user, so someone else feel free to nominate the rest.
Nymftalk to me07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
keep this one we can keep - this doesn't impede navigation at all, if we just put all of the countries into a
Category:Film directors by nationality tree (then these could be grouped into a film-directors-by-continent tree) - you can browse either way, with no impedance. See
Category:Health for an example of how it's done - browse by continent, or by country. No impedance either way, and somewhat common (we have around 250 by-continent trees) --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
18:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
both - check other continental cats, this is almost always done this way. Turkey and a few others are oddballs, so they go in both. Again, the problem here is that the cats in question are only in the continental containers - the standard is you can have continental containers and a by-country list as well, making it easier On the user.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Since by nationality and by country are two different things, isn't it possible that there can be a French director from Australia? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually more relevant would be a French director from Guadaloupe. He is clearly French, Guadaloupe is a department of France, but is he "from Europe"?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't think subcategorising people by continent is particularly inconvenient, and it can help to clear up those massive 'X by nationality' categories. At least in the case of film, it's justified - there really are differences between 'European film', 'Asian film', 'African film' etc.
Robofish (
talk)
17:33, 30 May 2013 (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:American pornographic actors
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:Ships damaged by kamikaze attack
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: Being damaged by something is not normally considered to be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This does not form part of a "Ships damaged by something" category tree. This could behas been listified.
DexDor (
talk)
05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for finding that CFD (in which I don't see much support for this category). The incidents category should really be just for articles that are about an incident (i.e. an event such as a fire), not for an article about any ship that had such an incident - most/all of the articles directly in the maritime incidents category are about an incident.
DexDor (
talk)
21:50, 21 May 2013 (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:Monasteries where Gautama Buddha stayed
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.
What is the
Category:Places where someone stayed category tree? This sounds like it should be in it, and I'd like to see any other discussions about this. I'd think non-defining at first glance but maybe there's some reason I'm missing, if there's a whole category tree for it ... --
Lquilter (
talk)
10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
delete, facts of historical & tourist interest are not the same thing as "defining" facts. Places where Jesus may have been conceived. Places where Mohammed gazed pensively toward the west. --
Lquilter (
talk)
00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the Buddha was certainly a very notable figure, but I suspect there will be a problem of verifying this. Ulimately, this suffers from the same problem as a performance by perfoemer category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:49, 22 May 2013 (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:Villages in Norfolk connected with houses of historical interest
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: Not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This makes a mess of the category structure. There is not a wider "Places connected with buildings of historical interest" category tree.
DexDor (
talk)
05:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - it it crazy-making to categorize things according narrower contents: "Bodies associated with arms", "Systems associated with stuff in them". ... This is also a sort of many-to-many category which is also crazy-making. Delete, delete, delete. --
Lquilter (
talk)
11:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
delete^3 I don't even know how to explain all of the numerous reasons this is a bad category, so I'll just say not defining. At all. It's rather amusing, I added 'ddd' to my edit summary on the previous one before seeing LQs delete delete delete - so I think we're of a similar mind on both of these perhaps. This cat has been around since 2010 - wow. We need to get better at catching and eliminating this category cruft much sooner.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- It might be possible to devise a category on estate villages, but I am dubious as to that being possible.
Delete The fact that we only have this category for Norfolk just screams that it is a bad idea. This is a bad way to categorize. It is unclear it has any meaning in the present, and in general we should only categorize places by present status. Otherwise many places in Eastern Europe would be categoized as in 3 or more countries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:31, 28 May 2013 (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:Proposed railway stations scheduled to open in 2012
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: Category is time-sensitive and now outdated. All stations in category have opened and should be categorized as such. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
22:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
rename/merge per Vegaswikian1. Delays are common and there aren't so many new stations being built that we need to break them out by year. Personally I would prefer
Category:Railway stations being constructed with appropriate pruning given that many station proposals come to naught because the associated line is never built.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete as obsolete. Either the stations opened and will have moved to Stations opened in 2012 or they were delayed and should be in the equivalent 2013 category; or they offend
WP:CRYSTAL, being projects that never got under way, having never been funded, and the articles should never have eben created.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Assuming they they have not been cancelled or are being completed this year is not sourced or based on anything. We should not be guessing.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't understand Vegaswikian1's proposal, as the rename target
Category:Proposed railway stations already exists, and I'm not clear what is meant by "Merge in...". Does it mean that we should upmerge this and
Category:Proposed railway stations by date and all its yearly sub-cats into
Category:Proposed railway stations? I think that would not be a good outcome, as the contents are also sub-categorised by location. Instead, if we don't want to keep the analysis by date, we should do a check that all the contents are categorised as proposed railway stations by location, and delete rather than merge the date categories. –
FayenaticLondon06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Having run into several building categories for buildings planned or being built or similar, there is a failure to update the articles. It is not uncommon to see someone create a series of articles and then no one compels by to update the material. When you can find sources, it is not uncommon for the completion date to move several years into the future. It is also not uncommon to see these projects get cancelled. So using your
local crystal ball, even with sources that commonly mimic press releases, should be discouraged. Also, is it defining when these are suppose to open? Or are we just grouping these for convenience?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't know the history or anything about the stations in this category. I just came across it and noticed it was outdated so I brought its attention here. I don't like the idea of
Category:Railway stations being constructed because this implies the stations are being constructed at the moment, when a station could be planned and it has yet to begin construction. –
Dream out loud (
talk)
21:15, 24 May 2013 (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:Computer pioneers
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 is problematic for many reasons - but the main one is POV. Computing and computer science continue to evolve, so the inventor of Twitter may well be a "Pioneer" in the 140-character message but I'm not sure if that was the intent of this category. As you click on various bios, they are often of people who did some work in the 50s/60s/70s, but I still fail to see how this is defining, and why *everyone* who worked during that era should thus not be awarded as a computing pioneer. I think one of its subcats, Internet pioneers, can be a bit better defined, as there was a period where the fundamental structures of the internet were being created, but computing started, well, way back in time, and things are obviously still progressing apace. I don't know what else to do with this category but delete it - otherwise it will continue to accumulate bios of people who see themselves as pioneers (and indeed, they may have been, in whatever particular sub-part of computing they were involved in). I realize there is a whole pioneers tree, I'm not ready to address that, but this one doesn't work. There is a
List of pioneers in computer science which could be better sourced and populated, so I'd say we listify the key members of this cat and delete due to subjective criteria for inclusion.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep it is clearly not "everyone" who worked in that era, but those who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Seems a pretty slim argument to delete. Of course there is judgment needed to some extent, but the category is not "good" or "bad" pioneers. At most maybe rename it to a less judgmental term like "early computer people" but that sounds odd. "Computer pioneer" seems fairly natural to me.
W Nowicki (
talk)
19:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - The delete comments here apply to pretty much everything in the parent category
Category:Pioneers by field (and of course the child category,
Category:Internet pioneers). I don't think we should single out computer pioneers. I agree that the idea of "pioneers" has definitional problems, and I don't personally like the word, but there's something here with merit. For one thing, it's useful in the "history" category tree to have a subcategory of notable figures in early computing. ... Anyway, as I'm writing all this I'm thinking maybe it's just better to do it with an article or list. --
Lquilter (
talk)
21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I went after this one as it was the biggest and most full of cruft, and seemed to be stretching the definition the most. Based on what we do here, I agree, we should probably reformulate the rest of the tree. --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:08, 22 May 2013 (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:New York City Football Club
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: There are only two entries here on the exact same topic, both of which were created today. It says they aren't even due to begin playing their game until 2015. Anything could happen before then. Not all teams or organisations are given their own category anyway.
86.40.104.50 (
talk)
19:45, 21 May 2013 (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:Royal Preparatory School
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:Harvard Centennial Medal recipients
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 -- a non-defining honor from a graduate school to its alumni. This award from the Harvard Grad School of Arts & Sciences was established in 1989 and awarded from 2-4 graduates each year (7 in first year). The awardees are a disparate lot of folks, many of whom have lots of other award-winner categories on their articles, like
Leon Kass,
Margaret Atwood,
Elaine Pagels ... This is better maintained in the list in the article for the
Harvard Centennial Medal which can include footnotes, dates, and other information ....
Lquilter (
talk)
10:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per BHG's comment immediately above. If we are even remotely serious about eliminating categories for minor awards, this one should be pretty near the top of the list for pruning.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
16:42, 30 May 2013 (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:Members of the Nation of Gods and Earths
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:Qing Dynasty History
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.
Merge to
Cateogry:Qing Dynasty. However I half wonder if we should rename that
Category:Qing China, because it does not seem this is meant to be limited to things related directly to the dynasty as such. Since the Qing were in power from 1644 to 1912, they also partly overlap with the 17th-century and 20th-century cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:48, 3 June 2013 (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:Preachers
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. Re-created in 2011 after deletion at
CFD 2007 Nov 3. Sparsely-populated category with no stated criteria for inclusion. Although a few of the members were especially noted for preaching, according to citations, I do not even think it would be helpful to use these to start a list. Very many of
Category:Religious leaders are preachers. There is already
Category:Sermon writers and I have added a few members of the nominated category into that. There is no need for a merger as all the current members are suitably categorised as clergy, chaplains, missionaries etc. –
FayenaticLondon07:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete To make things real fun, we could argue that virtually all active members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to how the Church is set-up. On a more clear level, most people who are notable for preaching in any denomination hold clearly defined positions in the denomination that are better categorized in other ways.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:52, 3 June 2013 (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:Film directors from Europe
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: Since when do we categorize by continent? A whole bunch of these "X by continent" by this user, so someone else feel free to nominate the rest.
Nymftalk to me07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
keep this one we can keep - this doesn't impede navigation at all, if we just put all of the countries into a
Category:Film directors by nationality tree (then these could be grouped into a film-directors-by-continent tree) - you can browse either way, with no impedance. See
Category:Health for an example of how it's done - browse by continent, or by country. No impedance either way, and somewhat common (we have around 250 by-continent trees) --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
18:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
both - check other continental cats, this is almost always done this way. Turkey and a few others are oddballs, so they go in both. Again, the problem here is that the cats in question are only in the continental containers - the standard is you can have continental containers and a by-country list as well, making it easier On the user.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Since by nationality and by country are two different things, isn't it possible that there can be a French director from Australia? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually more relevant would be a French director from Guadaloupe. He is clearly French, Guadaloupe is a department of France, but is he "from Europe"?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - I don't think subcategorising people by continent is particularly inconvenient, and it can help to clear up those massive 'X by nationality' categories. At least in the case of film, it's justified - there really are differences between 'European film', 'Asian film', 'African film' etc.
Robofish (
talk)
17:33, 30 May 2013 (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:American pornographic actors
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:Ships damaged by kamikaze attack
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: Being damaged by something is not normally considered to be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This does not form part of a "Ships damaged by something" category tree. This could behas been listified.
DexDor (
talk)
05:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for finding that CFD (in which I don't see much support for this category). The incidents category should really be just for articles that are about an incident (i.e. an event such as a fire), not for an article about any ship that had such an incident - most/all of the articles directly in the maritime incidents category are about an incident.
DexDor (
talk)
21:50, 21 May 2013 (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:Monasteries where Gautama Buddha stayed
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.
What is the
Category:Places where someone stayed category tree? This sounds like it should be in it, and I'd like to see any other discussions about this. I'd think non-defining at first glance but maybe there's some reason I'm missing, if there's a whole category tree for it ... --
Lquilter (
talk)
10:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
delete, facts of historical & tourist interest are not the same thing as "defining" facts. Places where Jesus may have been conceived. Places where Mohammed gazed pensively toward the west. --
Lquilter (
talk)
00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the Buddha was certainly a very notable figure, but I suspect there will be a problem of verifying this. Ulimately, this suffers from the same problem as a performance by perfoemer category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:49, 22 May 2013 (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:Villages in Norfolk connected with houses of historical interest
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: Not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. This makes a mess of the category structure. There is not a wider "Places connected with buildings of historical interest" category tree.
DexDor (
talk)
05:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - it it crazy-making to categorize things according narrower contents: "Bodies associated with arms", "Systems associated with stuff in them". ... This is also a sort of many-to-many category which is also crazy-making. Delete, delete, delete. --
Lquilter (
talk)
11:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
delete^3 I don't even know how to explain all of the numerous reasons this is a bad category, so I'll just say not defining. At all. It's rather amusing, I added 'ddd' to my edit summary on the previous one before seeing LQs delete delete delete - so I think we're of a similar mind on both of these perhaps. This cat has been around since 2010 - wow. We need to get better at catching and eliminating this category cruft much sooner.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- It might be possible to devise a category on estate villages, but I am dubious as to that being possible.
Delete The fact that we only have this category for Norfolk just screams that it is a bad idea. This is a bad way to categorize. It is unclear it has any meaning in the present, and in general we should only categorize places by present status. Otherwise many places in Eastern Europe would be categoized as in 3 or more countries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:31, 28 May 2013 (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.