The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:withdrawn. – FayenaticLondon 18:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In Wikipedia categorization we normally try to keep encyclopedic content (i.e. articles) separate from Wikipedia administration (e.g. talk pages). This category is parented by a content category, but the pages in it are mostly talk pages (including one in Wikipedia talk namespace and its own Category talk page). I.e. it's rather a muddle. Articles such as Vršovice Savings Bank Buildingdon't belong in a QRpedia category. DexDor(talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination to delete withdrawn following repurposing of category (see below). I would prefer the category to be renamed, but that's probably best done by a separate discussion. DexDor(talk) 23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Rhododendrites and because this category is need in the management of QRpedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's intended to be a Wikipedia administration category then it should have a name that makes that clear (Category:WikiProject QRpedia articles?), it should be tagged as a ((Wikipedia category)) and it should be purged of articles (e.g. Occupy movement). DexDor(talk) 23:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Rename/Reparent/Purge Per DexDor's comment above. Two editors think it has value with Talk Pages for the template so it should surely be kept but DexDor's nomination is understandable based on how confusing this is t**oday. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I removed all articles from the category. WikiProject QRpedia folks should probably determine whether they want this to function like a typical wikiproject template vs. designating organizational use (because the latter doesn't make sense on, say, category talk pages and wikipedia namespace talk pages). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Only a couple didn't have it, but yes. Well, except for the category page I removed it from. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:40, 16 January 2016 (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.
Regional writers
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: It would probably be useful to bring the names of these categories into line with each other, e.g. "by geographic focus", "by region of area studies", "by region of study" or "by region studied". Note that "writers" potentially includes fiction writers, but I believe the first nominated category and all its sub-cats currently include only non-fiction writers. – FayenaticLondon 18:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to same format as parent Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area. By the way I think the third category is a bit different than the first and second, it's not so much by region but rather by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:@Johnbod: The scholars category contains some subcats which are definitely regional topics rather than ethic. Also, Area studies is the parent. Perhaps split it to two categories, by geographical subject area and ethnic subject area? – FayenaticLondon 23:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the above changed to keep the scholars as they are. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting would be better I guess. Geography and ethnicity are clearly separate topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2016 (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 Faculty of Advocates
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:no consensus; although Rathfelder has not struck his original opinion, his view has changed from agreeing with the nomination to agreeing that the category is useful. – FayenaticLondon 17:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:NONDEF. Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is not defining, in many articles it's not even mentioned at all. However, advocate is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. That would enable us to abolish the unhelpful category Category:Members of professional organizationsRathfelder (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This captures what is really defining, and it's not the organizational membership here. Note that I reparented the only other member of Category:Members of professional organizations. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote there, this nomination is based on the false assertion that Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is not defining. That falsehood is fundamental to the discussion, because this is not just another professional association.
Membership of the Faculty of Advocates is thedefining characteristic of an advocate in Scotland. For centuries, only its members were permitted to practise as advocates before the College of Justice. They have recently been joined by a smaller number of Solicitor Advocates (who are regulated by the faculty), but the distinction remains precise, and critical to understanding a legal career in Scotland.
The Faculty still controls all access to the profession. The following is from the Faculty's own website:
The proposed renaming blurs the category's precise purpose as a category of advocates admitted to practise before the Scottish higher courts. The renaming would widen the scope to include solicitor advocates, and also to include Scottish people who practised before courts elsewhere in the world.
That's right, they are not reliable sources in themselves, but they do reveal in each article separately if reliable sources exist for that particular person that confirm the definingness of the characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, Marcocapelle. Articles may reveal the existence of such sources, but because WP is not itself a reliable source, the absence of such references in an article is not proof that they don't exist. It is simply proof that Wikipedia editors have not added them to that particular article. It's evidence about the state of en.wp, not evidence about the sources.
However, you may in such articles or their cited sources have encountered the phrase "admitted as an advocate". That describes admission to membership of the Faculty of Advocates, which is the defining characteristic captured by these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think this is a too formalistic view. It would be different if there would be any evidence that WP editors deliberately omitted information about the membership of the Faculty, or made it less important than it actually is. But I really can't imagine that this will turn out to be the case here, there isn't anything controversial about this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, that's very silly. I neither suggested nor implied that any omissions in en.wp articles are due to "deliberately omitted information", and trying to turn this is into a debate about possible editorial misconduct is a red herring. Omissions like that arise because most such articles are woefully underdeveloped, because they have not had the attention of painstaking editors editors with wide access to sources. That's not cos anyone ahs done anything bad; it's simply because en.wp is work-in-progress, and Scots Law is an underdeveloped area of it. And once again, you focus on the state of en,wp articles, rather than on the sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fact that membership is compulsory makes it non-defining. It is like a category for doctors "Doctors recognised by the GMC", or "doctors who qualified" - there are no doctors outside the definition.Rathfelder (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I find that question very surprising, as well as misconstrued. It is misconstrued, because the parallel fails: in the UK, people qualify as a doctor at medical school; but they are not allowed to practise in the UK until admitted by the GMC, although other countries may allow them. It is quite possible to be a qualified doctor who has never been licensed to practise by the GMC. By contrast in Scotland a law graduate is just a law graduate unless they are a member of the Faculty; unlike medicine, there is no sense in which anyone becomes an Advocate before the Scottish Courts without membership of the Faculty. It's a simple, binary issue: in or out. The question is surprising, because the logic seems to be that it is not defining because it is too defining -- is in fact the only common defining characteristic of all advocates in Scotland. I find it very odd that such logic is applied. There are advocates outside this definition, but they are not entitled to practise before the courts in Scotland. They may be advocates before courts elsewhere in the world which use this terminology, or they may be advocates in the broader sense of the term. A few weeks ago I did a huge purge of Category:Advocates, removing dozens of people who were advocates for a cause rather than people admitted as court lawyers, and renaming this category to "Scottish advocates" will encourage similar miscategorisation. The current category has a very precise scope, just like Category:Senators of the College of Justice or Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament. Why replace a precisely-defined category with a fuzzy, imprecise one which is a magnet for miscategorisation? How would that benefit readers? It's as foolish as merging Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament to Category:Scottish politicians. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of Scottish legal structures by the editors who commented at the start of the CFD. The Faculty of Advocates and the College of Justice are two of the great institutions of Scotland which have remained intact for centuries, and the Act of Union specifically preserves them "in all time coming". These are not just some sort of professional association or regulatory body; they are pillars of the (largely) unwritten constitution of Scotland. By contrast, the GMC is a regulatory body, one of several operating in the field of healthcare in England, and it has existed only since 1858, before when doctors were unlicensed. OTOH, since at least 1532, there have been zero advocates practising in Scotland outside of the Faculty. I really wonder what is going on in this discussion. In England and Wales, there are 4 Inns of Court which together control the profession of barrister, and those categories (Category:Members of Gray's Inn etc) have not been included in this nomination. Why? Why pick off just the Scottish category? The English Inns of Court are less defining than the Scottish Faculty, because there are alternatives to any one of them, yet Rathfelder seems happy to keep them because they haven't been categorised in Category:Members of professional organizations. There is a logic in England to having a Category:English barristers with subcats for the 4 Inns, because an English biography whose subject is recorded in reliable sources as having been "called to the bar" may not explain which Inn they were called to ... whereas in Scotland the phrase "admitted as an advocate" means only one thing: membership of the Faculty. Why on earth does anyone want to discard such precision of scope and clarity of purpose? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make was simply that the category "Scottish advocates" - in the sense you use it - and the category "Members of the Faculty of Advocates" are identical. I agree that the term "Advocates" is too ambiguous to be a useful category term.Rathfelder (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: Your point about identicality is not true. You appear to be bignoring the point I made above that "Scottish advocate" could include Scottish people who practised before courts elsewhere in the world. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you ponder creating a new variant in the category system to accommodate the ambiguity caused by the loss of precision arising from a renaming based on the nominator's demonstrably false belief that membership of the Faculty of Advocates is not defining? Boggle-max. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of a category is not to highlight one "of the great institutions of Scotland", it's to aid navigation. Advocates is the more widely understood term, so I would favor using that per WP:COMMONNAME. Now if "Advocate" were incorrect in a Scottish context by all means, use the more obscure term. No doubt it belies my cultural ignorance, but as a lay reader I find the current title to be jargon. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @RevelationDirect: My purpose in noting that the Faculty is "of the great institutions of Scotland" is not glorification; it's to remind editors that their unfamiliarity with the Scottish legal system is not shared by Scots. Your question about whether "advocates" is incorrect misses the point. The problem is not error; it's lack of precision:
Not all advocates are lawyers. Many people are advocates for causes, and a steady steam of them is added to Category:Advocates. A Category:Scottish advocates would suffer from the same problem.
Not all lawyer-advocates are members of the Faculty of Advocates. Some practise law in other countries.
Not all Scottish lawyer-advocates are members of the Faculty of Advocates. Some are Scottish people who practise law elsewhere.
Not all members of the Faculty of Advocates are Scottish. Some are English barristers who have been admitted to the Faculty so that they can represent their clients in both of the UK's legal systems. Some are barristers from elsewhere in the world who have been admitted to the faculty for similar reasons, and others are migrants to Scotland.
I'm all in favour of removing jargon when it doesn't lose precision, but in this case the proposed change does lose precision, as well as using a generic word which has a much broader (and v different) meaning in general use. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You're right, there are cases where the rename changes the inclusion criteria in some cases. But the parent category, Category:Scottish lawyers and the sister category Category:Scottish solicitors have identical inclusion criteria to what you describe above and I don't see a compelling reason to treat this legal profession differently than the others. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reasons to treat this differently, as set out above. But I will repeat them:
Unlike "solicitor" or "lawyer", the plain English meaning of the term "advocate" outside Scotland does not refer to a lawyer. A category named "advocates" or "Fooian advocates" is therefore a magnet for miscategorisation of people who are advocates for a cause.
Unlike "solicitor" or "lawyer", the Scottish legal profession of advocate has always been a function of membership of one body
Unlike other countries such as England or the USA, the Scottish legal profession of advocate has always been a function of membership of one body. That complete one-to-one mapping does not apply to your comparators
In most countries, the phrase use for entering the profession of a pleader before the courts is "called to the bar". In Scotland it is "admitted as an advocate", reflecting the widespread understanding that in Scotland this means being admitted as a member of the "Faculty of Advocates"
The ancient history and prominent status of the Faculty of Advocates means that its purpose and name are widely understood in Scotland. It is frequently discussed the media, as shown by these searches of the The Scotsman newspaper, The Herald newspaper and the UK-wide BBC
This proposed renaming is very clearly a dumbing-down, doing a disservice to our readers by creating avoidable ambiguity and obscuring the unique nature of the Scottish profession. It is explicitly based on a false premise by a nominator who hadn't done adequate homework before nominating, yet the nominator Marcocapelle has not even had the courtesy to respond to pings since I pointed references to disprove the nomination's basis. The first supporter accepted without question (or any evident checking) that false assertion, and when corrected simply dismissed the relevance of the error.
Every single one of the counter-arguments against my objections has been refuted, yet none of the initial three proponents of renaming is wiling to correct their views when the facts are corrected.
I am beginning to feel very frustrated by this CFD discussion. The nominator and two supporters clearly did wholly inadequate preparation for their nomination and !votes, and are all utterly unrepentant of the resulting errors. Instead of reconsidering, they are either ignoring the discussion or digging in, dismissing new evidence ... and none of the three show any signs of doing any homework of their own. Instead there are new and easily-falsifiable assertions such as RevelationDirect's complaint of treat this legal profession differently than the others.
I have just spent several weeks writing and categorising articles on Scottish lawyers and judges, e.g. Lord Grant, Lord Cullen, John Watson, Lord Brand, Lord Minginish and have more drafts in the pipeline. Along the way I have consulted hundreds of sources ... yet here I am engaged in a long debate with an editor who does no evident research, and repeatedly asserts simple falsehoods. I have often agreed with RevelationDirect in the past, but right now I very disappointed to be feeling echoes of WP:Randy in Boise. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are 4 Inns of Court means there is actually something to categorize, and those groupings are a useful diffusion to what would otherwise be an extremely large category. Neither one of those benefits are here: the category is not absurdly large and--since there is only one organization--this doesn't offer a real breakdown. The other comparisons really amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the heading on Category:Members of the Bar of England and Wales. It is explicitly there to distinguish between Members of the Bar of England and Wales, and people of those nationalities who are barristers in other legal systems. The residue may be a small percentage, but it is a real and important distinction. This is the distinction which you want to abolish in Scotland, but not for England+Wales.
The fact that there are 4 organisations in England vs one in Scotland is irrelevant. The distinction been "barristers of foo nationality" and "barristers before the courts of foo" would still apply even if the categs for the 4 Inns of Court were upmerged, or if there was only one single Inn of Court.
There is for example a significant number of American lawyers admitted to the Inns of Court, to represent their corporate clients in Eglish legal matters. Those people are neither "English barristers" nor "Welsh barristers", and the same distinction applies to English barristers admitted as advocates in Scotland.
I have made this point several times in several ways, yet you appear to ignore it each time. Why? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus comparison. @RevelationDirect: in the case of advocates and barristers, there is a universal requirement to be a member of one of the Inns of Court for English barristers, or of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland. This has been in place in Scotlnad for at least 500 years. No exceptions in time or place.
By contrast, your examples are all qualified. "Most big city newspaper reporters" doesn't cover magazine journalists or journalists on other newspapers. It has never been a universal legal precondition for practising the profession of journalism in the USA, just a condition of employment set by some employers at some times (for reasons which are irrelevant here).
Similarly, you say "Canadian dentists in several provinces". Not "in all provinces in all time".
As I have repeated ad nauseam, the profession of advocate in Scotland is and always has been restricted by law to members of the Faculty of Advocates. No such all-time-and-all-places restriction exists for most other professions in Scotland, such as architects, journalists, engineers, doctors, writers, historians, archaeologists, nurses, accountants, company directors, politicians, academics, diplomats. Nor does it apply to those professions in other most countries.
Request Relisting@Fayenatic london, MER-C, and Black Falcon: This discussion is unusual: it is a CfD discussion that was closed by a non-admin which was then informally contested with this conversation The closing non-admin, (@SSTflyer:), then reversed the close and re-opened the prior conversation. Ithink this discussion would get more eyes--pro or con--if it was relisted with the current day's nominations but, since this discussion revolves around non-admin actions being reversed, I don't feel like being bold here. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(If it is relisted, I'm happy to update the link in the WikiProject notices BHG posted.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to relisting, but if that happens it would be helpful for participants are notified so that watchlists can be updated. However, given the lack of impact of the notifications, I'm not sure that relisting would help much. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced by BrownHairedGirl's arguments that this category is useful. And I think the parent category, Category:Members of professional organizations needs to make it clear that it is only for categories, not for individual people who are members of professional organisations.Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rathfelder. It's nice to know that someone is listening!
I see that Category:Members of professional organizations has been nominated for deletion CFD 2016 January 17. I am not sure whether that categ is a good idea, but I do agree that it should not be for individual people. So I have tagged it[3] as ((container)). -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like I was expected to give a further reaction. Though I think we simply disagree. I just don't find it likely that the Wp articles are so consistently "in bad shape". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2016 (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 Millville, Massachusetts
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 3 articles is not enough to keep a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (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.
History of Podgorica
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. As for the wider question concerning untagged categories, see WP:CFD#Scope about better ways ahead. – FayenaticLondon 15:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:SMALLCAT, for currently a total of 3 articles it does not make sense to create a tree for this city. Just a single history category should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remind the nominator of the part of WP:SMALLCAT that reads "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Please see Category:20th century by city and Category:21st century by city which contains most capital cities and other large cities. I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest to that nominator that he starts to notify category creators that he is nominating categories for deletion. Considering the tool Wikipedia:Twinkle makes it possible to tag a category for deletion, list on the CFD page and nominate the category creator with a single click, I can only consider that not nominating the creator is a deliberate decision by the nominator. Also considering how many CFD nominations made by this particular nominator, I consider this an extremely bad lack of etiquette and urge the nominator to either start using twinkle immediately or to manually nominate category creators. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question then becomes if every city should have its own by-century tree, no matter how large or small the city / the category is. I can't quite imagine that this should be the case. (Btw I don't know Wikipedia:Twinkle, I'll have a look, thanks for the tip.) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request relisting to have the latter question answered by broader consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2016 (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 professional organizations
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:procedural close. The nominator renominated this category here using the correct procedure we described below. I have copied the two votes below to that discussion. Note this is a non-admin close and I have participated in that subsequent nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Superfluous category. WP:NONDEFINING Much better to put the category together with the organisation of which the people are members.Rathfelder (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the rationale is confused. There are no individual articles at the top level so 'defining' is irrelevant. The subcats (and many more subcats could be added) can also be parented by 'the organisation of which the people are members' so that objection is specious. Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates are clearly also 'members of a professional organisation' so what is the problem? Finally, the category is not tagged. Oculi (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2016 (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.
A meaningless category. WP:NONDEFINING Almost all organisations have membership. The organisations or categories put here were indistinguishable from the others.Rathfelder (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What about charities, companies, government bodies etc.? They are all organisations without membership. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the nominator has (a) not understood these categories and (b) emptied them out of process. If you don't understand something, leave it alone. If this category had not been emptied it would be easier to explain why some organisations can be classified as 'by membership' and others cannot. (I am not necessarily supporting this scheme. I have opposed various such schemes at cfd, eg 'by parameter', 'by paradigm', 'Works by work'. However if an editor wishes to dismantle a scheme it must be via cfd. In contrast an editor who wishes to create a category scheme can go ahead unhindered, but such asymmetries are part of life.) Oculi (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment – the category is not tagged for cfd, and neither are the others recently brought to cfd by the same nominator. Oculi (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the nominator's talk page explaining the tagging process. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has now deleted this category as empty (which it isn't). Could an admin undelete it? Oculi (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually create this one, but I've created many like it. Organizations have a number of different attributes -- their purpose or audience, their membership, their nation of origin, their legal structure. Membership is important: Is an organization's membership all other organizations? Is it only elected officials? Men or women? Athletes or scientists? It's a core defining characteristic. You might find a better way to name the category ("by type of membership" instead of "by membership") but it's to help organize the organizations' categories. --Lquilter (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming may be a good idea, but then I'd prefer Category:Membership-based organisations in the United Kingdom. The disadvantage of "by" is that it suggests each child category to contain a different kind of membership, which is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. That's not how I read "by", but if that's how other people read it, okay. I would worry that "membership-based organisations" suggests that there are some organisations that are not membership-based. And to me, "organizations ... by membership" sounds like "by" is an organizing principle here in Wikipedia. But it's interesting to see how people think about it. --Lquilter (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of non-membership based organizations, that's what I started my oppose with, see above. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already Speedy Deleted@Larryv:. I think this category was emptied prior to discussion and then you deleted it as empty. Can you recreate it until this discussion closes? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was empty and tagged for speedy deletion instead of CfD. I've restored it; sorry for the trouble. larryv (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All companies and most charities have members. The fact that government bodies and the like don't have members seems a pretty insignificant characteristic. How does this category help anyone looking for a particular kind of organisation?Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Companies usually have employees instead of members. Charities usually have sponsors instead of members. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The shareholders of companies are members. In the UK at least almost all large charities have members.Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard before that shareholdership is regarded as a form of membership. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can discuss whether a particular organization can be better described by its membership, by its subject or by its activity, and then we'll certainly hit some problems. But this is a perfectly valid categorization scheme with the nominator obviously missing the point. --PanchoS (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep the category it needs a clear explanation of how the organisations included are to be distinguished from those excluded.Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You got this wrong, given your experience I'm wondering whether purposely or not. foo by bar categories are container categories. They don't need an inclusion rationale as they are not supposed to contain individual articles at all. What they do need is appropriate bar subcategories with clear inclusion criteria, which should basically cover all foo articles. --PanchoS (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this discussion? I am happy to concede my proposal was misguided.Rathfelder (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: Thanks and my full respect for conceding. This kind of errors happen, and noone should hold a withdrawal against the nom. PanchoS (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2016 (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:Burial sites of the Maytag family
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. – FayenaticLondon 18:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Deleting Category:Burial sites of the Maytag family
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, and WP:NONDEFINING.
"Newton, Iowa" is the only article in this category and it makes no references of any Maytag family members being buried there. Given the importance of the Maytag Appliance founders to the area, it's certainly likely some are buried there but that's not defining for a city article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a bizarre category. Oculi (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to consider whether it's defining, since there's no on-wiki evidence that it will grow beyond one member. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Where members of this family are buried is utterly undefining. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (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.