< September 30	October 2 >

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 but purge. I won't be doing the purging, so I hope those who participated in this discussion can follow up and do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Way of St. James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Also in this case there are multiple routes based on the article. So if the decision is other then delete, a rename is probably needed. In this case, from the map, there are simply too many places that were along the extremely large number of permutations for the way to be defining for anything along the trail. Yes, there may be some limited exceptions, but how would you reword the category name and the introduction to may inclusion objective instead of subjective? I suppose that a listify would be an option to address the various permutations. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but purge. There are several articles in this category for which the trail is a defining characteristic - e.g. Way_of_St._James_(route_descriptions) and articles about books, films etc based on the trail. However, most of the articles currently in this category (e.g. Cape_Finisterre) are about places on/near the trail for which the trail is not a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but purge, as recommended by DexDor. This is a long-existing pilgrimage, and routes of the pilgrimage are a defining characteristic for some of the places along the way -- and particularly for articles like World Heritage Sites of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and purge Category:Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage -- I think the main article ought to be something like Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage, rather than Way of St James with the route article merged in. This was one of the great medieval pilgrimages, and it probably need a category. However, with multiple routes across France, I do not think we can have a valid category for any French section: it would be too indiscriminate. However, all the routes join up in Spain. Monasteries existed to act as hospices for pilgrims, so that there will be a lot of pilgrimage related subjects on the route. What we cannot keep in the category is articles concerning places that happen to be on the route, but have no other connection to the pilgrimage. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I still think that there is room for a category on the pilgrimage, including articles on each of the routes to Compostella, but a lot of the relatrd categories need to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron: Could you provide some additional description of what you think is needed? You apparently have dug into the topic more deeply than anyone else here, and thus are in a better position to define the path for this CFD to take. --Orlady (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge comes from having watched TV programmes (travel programmes) on the pilgrimage route, the one close to the north coast of Spain, which was used by pilgrims from northern Europe. I do not have detailed knowledge, only general knowledge. This was one of the great medieval pilgrimages and it should be possible to construct a valid category for it, including monasteries and other buildings directly linked to the pilgrimage, but not places through which that route passed; certainly not all the places on all the tributary routes that led to the route through northern Spain. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Purge per Dexdor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 21 October 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Voice (TV series) hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Performer by performance category, thus overcategorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Yet another Performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 4 October 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The X Factor (TV series) hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Performer by performance, thus overcategorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We should not categorize by hosting a specific show, that is performer by performance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Yet another Performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 4 October 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.

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: abducted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:UFO-related theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is no reason to separate out articles on ideas relating to UFOs from Category:Ufology or Category:Unidentified flying objects in general. This category is poorly named as well because most of the pages included are not "theories" in the scientific sense and "UFO-related" as a term is very ambiguous. Outright deletion is fine. Nothing will be lost if this category is removed and it will be less confusing for the reader. jps (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:59, 8 October 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Gospel artists from Detroit, Michigan to Category:Gospel singers from Detroit, Michigan
• Nominator's rationale In general we use "artist" for visual artists, not for musicians. Additionally, this is a sub-cat of Category:American gospel singers, so that seems to indicate that is the term we generally use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 1 October 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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Bentleyville, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Washington County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 13:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 2 October 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Commendation for Brave Conduct (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains just two articles - one about the award itself (which shouldn't be in a recipients category - see, for example, closing admins comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Category:Recipients_of_the_Bravery_Medal_.28Australia.29) and one article about a footballer that contains an (uncited) reference to him having the award (but does not explain why he has it). Hence, it doesn't appear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of this person (who is in plenty of other categories). Note: According to the WP article it "is ranked fourth in the Australian bravery decoration" so WP:OC#AWARD also applies. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) corrected DexDor (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• False! First, and most importantly, the fact that the category currently only contains one member is irrelevant. Second, the Barassi article explains, at length, EXACTLY why he was awarded it, and it ISN'T uncited (or at least, it wasn't at the time I added him to the category). Third, if you don't know who Barassi is, then you are displaying an incredible ignorance of Australian culture. I'm not going to explain; the obligation is upon you to do your homework. More generally: If you want to participate in the destruction of making WP an encyclopaedia containing information, you are walking down the right path to achieve it - I would prefer you used other mechanisms I would prefer you use a more positive approach to improving the encyclopaedia. Mis-quoting, and/or selectively quoting WP policy out-of-context, may keep you warm at night, but I have no interest in participating in silly games which promote a POV agenda for which there is NO consensus, and for which there is NO WP policy. (Just a number of PsOV of a number of people who make repeated, and often false, assertions without making ANY attempt to explain themselves, much less making any attempt to justify their PsOV. BTW: The fact that ONE closing admin made ONE inaccurate statement which is contrary to defined WP policy and practice is NOT justification for ramming one's POV down everyone's throat.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound like a personal attack aimed at you - it isn't. Please read on. Yes, you bet I'm angry! But not specifically at you. I'm very tired of people less polite and more unpleasant than you who push their POV without paying attention to anything other than their own POV! There are WP policies and guidelines that talk about consensus and etiquette. Today I've been a WP editor for 6 years, 6 months and 6 days, and have made over 40,000 contributions to Wikipedia. I've seen this cult-of-the-personal-opinion in preference to the-policy-of-consensus all before, many times, and I'm tired of it. You just happen to have "pressed my buttons" - sorry, you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. My apologies. You will no doubt do some combination of whatever you think is "the right thing", and whatever you think you can/will get away with, but I expect (hope) you have morals and a conscience, so please reflect upon the consequences of your actions, and I hope others reading this will reflect upon the consequences of their actions. Please note that what I'm trying to do is (using a lot of words to incompetently) say "there are other points of view than yours, and in coming to a consensus, those words also deserve at least as much thought/consideration/whatever as your words". And please also note that there aren't that many editors who have been around for more than 5 years; I expect (hope) that you will (have) discover(ed) that ignoring their experience is counterproductive. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Pdfpdf. Please provide links to back up your assertions (in particular those relevant to this CFD discussion - e.g. "the Barassi article explains, at length, EXACTLY why he was awarded it" and "is contrary to defined WP policy"). If there's any evidence that I have mis-quoted policy (or anything else you accuse me of) please provide such evidence (my talk page may be a more appropriate place than here); if there's no such evidence then please retract. DexDor (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On New Year's Eve 2008 Ron Barassi was assaulted when he went to the aid of a young woman in St Kilda. Barassi, dining with friends, saw a woman punched to the ground around 12.30 am.Cooper, Mex (January 9, 2009). "Police make arrest over Barassi bashing".

• The quoted reference provides the explanation.
• The fact that ONE closing admin made ONE inaccurate statement which is contrary to defined WP policy and practice is NOT justification for ramming one's POV down everyone's throat.)

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - histrionics aside, it does appear that this is a relatively minor award and not particularly defining of its recipients. Indeed, the vast majority of those who received their commendations at the same time as current occupant Ron Barassi aren't even notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How/why is your comment relevant? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a defining award to recipients. It is much better to have lists of aweards than categories, since linsts can contain much more useful information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well! (Here's one for the books!) Yes John, I agree with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 4 October 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.