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 @Chicbyaccident was showing little regard for consensus-forming processes, and has now abandoned it entirely by renaming[1] this category while this discussion is open. Since the nominator has abandoned any pretence of respecting this consensus-forming process, I am closing this discussion. I will revert the move, and protect the category page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. CFD 2017 October 24 was closed as "no consensus" (after being open for 78 days) because it consisted of a) the nominator's proposed renaming, b) one !vote by @Gidonb for a different renaming; c) an alternative proposal by @Marcocapelle to make a subcat. With 3 editors proposing different outcomes, "no consensus" was the only possible closure unless some arguments were better founded in policy or evidence, which was not the case here. It is surprising that this needs to be explained to @Chicbyaccident, and regrettable that Chicbyaccident has chosen to misrepresent the Oct 24 discussion by falsely claiming that there were two positive votes for the proposal. That misrepresentation combined with Chicbyaccident's bizarre claim that a discussion open for 78 days was prematurely closed makes it hard to believe that Chicbyaccident is acting in good faith. Chicbyaccident should also have notified the two other participants in the October discussion that an identical proposal was being made again. I hope that my pings above will be some notice. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well-specified rename proposals contain two elements: [1] the name of the category needs to change [2] it should be changed to the name suggested. In the previous discussion I agreed with 1 but rejected 2. Marcocapelle rejected 1 and thought that 2 would be a good name for a subcategory. So there was consensus (2 of 3) for renaming. The question is whether there was consensus on the renaming. I think there was no consensus as Marco did not agree that Category:Catholic Church-related controversies should be the name of the very category for which a name change was suggested. I clearly rejected this name. In hindsight Chicbyaccident (talk·contribs) could have adopted my quite similar proposal, she could have tried to convince me of the name she suggested, or she could have joined Marco's proposal that also includes elements of hers. These strategies could have given her part or all what she desired. No blame for the outcome should be put on BrownHairedGirl (talk·contribs) who closed the discussion correctly. As the proposal failed last month, this month I'm suggesting a procedural keep. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2018 (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:Catholic denominations
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maintaining both categories borders WP:OVERCATEGORISATION: "Catholic" in the article realm redirects to the Catholic Church, and there is no matching article Catholic denomination. Categories should not deviate from WP:Consensus in the article realm but for exceptionately good reasons. For the record, while I came across the category, it contained Old Catholic Church in Poland, which I then recategorised as into Category:Old Catholic denomations. This preexisting categorisation of Old Catholic Church in Poland exemplifies what's problematic about the neutrality, defintion, and scope with the category. A former proposal was put forward at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_24#Category:Catholic_denominations, with three positive votes against one negative, yet still unfortunately prematurely closed as "no consensus" by BrownHairedGirl (talk·contribs) without, I would argue, sufficient explanation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. Several points in reply to @Chicbyaccident::
if you disagree with a CfD closure, then the next steps are set out at WP:DELREVD: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion Review". There is no guidance anywhere which supports using a new XfD nomination as an first-step venue to complain about the closure of a previous discussion.
The previous discussion was not prematurely closed, as Chicbyaccident falsely claims. On the contrary, it was open for 78 days, which is an extraordinary eleven times the minimum. The nominator should not abuse CfD as a platform to blatantly misrepresent the actions of other editors.
Opening a new nomination to repeat a proposal which was the subject of a recently-closed debate is WP:FORUMSHOPping. Less delay is needed if the previous discussion closed as "no consensus", which was the case here; but the nominator's failure to notify the participants in the previous debate puts this firmly in the forum shopping territory. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than forum shopping, please consider this if you like helping out with a relisting. That should have been made at least once before determining "no consensus". Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with BrownHairedGirl on all points. tahcchat 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate -- This will be largely a container. It should contain Catholic Church; Old Catholic denominations; Church of England, where Anglo-Catholics claim to be Catholic; Patriotic Chinese Catholic Church (in PRC, which was forced to abrogate Rome); and probably a selection dissident Catholic churches in America. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the previous round I did not give due weight to Category:Catholic denominations being part of a larger structure. Thanks to Chicbyaccident for supplying me with an unexpected opportunity to correct this opinion. gidonb (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chicbyaccident, no it doesn't. Your claim is basically a whataboutism. While there may be issues with Category:Christian denominational families, these should be raised there. Such issues have no impact on the topic at hand and on the rationale for my opinion. Google "The Danger Of WhatAbout-ism" for more details. gidonb (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2018 (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:Eastern Catholicism
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. Contrary to claims below by the nominator @Chicbyaccident, the 2017 October 24 CFD was not closed prematurely; it was closed after 77 days. It was also not closed as "no consensus"; it was closed as keep, with a clear explanation: "No reason was offered for naming this category to a different format from its subcats such as Category:History of Eastern Catholicism. If it was intended that they should be renamed too, they should have been tagged and listed as part of a group nomination". This nomination is another attempt to apply a change to large set of categories which have neither been tagged nor listed. Those two omissions prevent a valid WP:CONSENSUS being formed, because a) the lack of tagging means that editors who visit and/or watchlist the pages effected will see no indication that a discussion is underway regarding their fate; b) anyone who visits on this discussion page will see no list of the proposal's scope. So I am closing this discussion now, because its procedural flaws mean cannot be closed as anything other than "keep". Leaving it open would simply be wasting the time of anyone who commented. The nominator makes a reasoned case for the proposed change, but that case needs to be made as a group nomination of all the categories involved. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:CFD#HOWTO, and if the nominator would like assistance, I suggest a request at WT:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 22 February 2018 (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:Broken hearts
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.
Keep, I'm the "joker" who created this category, and it came about because I created the page Memory, the Heart, a painting which symbolically depicts the artist, Frida Kahlo, her broken heart, and the emotion accompanying such an event. It wasn't created because of Valentine's Day or to vandalize the encyclopedia by adding a joke category. Broken hearts are portrayed in art, in literature, song, theater, opera, and other forms of communication. The page 'Takotsubo cardiomyopathy' was iffy, as it is a real-world condition with the alternate name of 'Broken heart syndrome', but I thought it was close enough for inclusion. This is a real subject, and instead of wanting to delete it maybe you can please help to expand it. I'd also like to point out that it does include appropriate and closely related pages and a major sub-category (Songs about heartache) other than the two that are highlighted in the nomination. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have a category for 'Love' - see Category:Love, so it seems to be valid to some extent. But the article for Love also links to Category:Emotions so this probably should be in there somewhere? Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Twiceuponatime (nice user name). You're correct, and after mulling this over came to a personal conclusion that the 'Love' category would be the best place for this as a subcategory. There cannot be a broken heart without first having a love. People, pets, or other loves fully loved have to exist before the life-events and emotions take some sort of chemical left-turn and evolve into the series of physical and emotional wrap-arounds that result in bona-fide card-carrying broken hearts. So as a directly related condition of "Love", that category seems appropriate. Thanks for pointing out that this one needed an up-the-chain home. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will remove the Tak cardio page. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This maybe should have been closed as kept, with a name change to 'Broken heart', awhile ago, and I ask someone to do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2018 (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:Grand Croix of the Ordre national du Mérite
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:relisted at 2018 April 30 adding sibling categories. – FayenaticLondon 08:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Grand Croix of the Ordre national du Mérite to Category:Grand Croix of the National Order of Merit (France)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Consistency with default article realm article name National Order of Merit (France). I equally educated the same update to the other related categories inside Category:Recipients of the National Order of Merit (France), although I am not sure how to go about that technically here on this page. If you know, please help me. Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – the article does seem to be National Order of Merit (France). The main cat is category:National Order of Merit (France) but this is because it was moved there boldly by the nom rather than via cfd. The cat is not tagged. Oculi (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question, shouldn't it become Category:Receipients of the Grand Croix of the National Order of Merit (France)? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Well, Category:Recipients of the Grand Croix of the National Order of Merit (France) pauli133 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Pourquoi the étrange hybrid de Anglais & French?
The current title is all French: "Grand Croix of the Ordre national du Mérite"
The English translation would be: "Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit (France)"
But the nominator's proposal is: "<French>Grand Croix</French><English>of the National Order of Merit (France)</English>"
Use one language or the other. Mais ce melange of deux vocabularies hurts ma tête. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Good observation. I agree: "Grand cross" would be more suitable. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Great Cross of the National Order of Meryt would be even more inventive. Pldx1 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2018 (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:KEXP
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: Per long-established past consensus against eponymous categories for individual radio stations. This is also a WP:SMALLCAT, containing just the eponym itself and two compilation albums branded by the station. I've also removed a couple of articles already, because they violated either WP:PERFCAT (we don't categorize radio DJs by individual station that they've worked for) or WP:DEFINING (a music festival in Iceland is not defined by KEXP just because KEXP sent a DJ there to report on it once.) There's just not the volume of KEXP-defined spinoff content necessary to deem it a special exception to our established consensus against categories for individual radio stations. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2018 (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:Railway stations served by London Midland
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: Procedural nomination of contested speedy. I am neutral for now. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really comfortable processing this one without a full discussion. C2D does not technically apply to set categories; however, more than that, I wonder if there are any railyway stations that were served by London Midland but are not served by West Midland Trains. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Even if the franchise has a new name, the fact that a station was formerly served by London Midland (and any other defunct railway companies) remains true and is worth a category. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be absurd to categorize railway stations by all of the former companies serving the station, that also goes against WP:OVERLAPCAT. However, I wonder if we can rename categories like this in such a way that it becomes independent of the railway company, e.g. Category:Railway stations of the West Midland franchise. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt rename to Category:West Midlands franchise railway stations. This is exactly what I meant earlier on. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the merit in the alternative suggestion, however the franchises changes almost as often as the franchisees. While the theory is that franchise areas are long term and don't change, reality is that they are far from stable, both in terms of names and geographical coverage.
For example the Thameslink franchise was merged with the Great Northern franchise in 2006, then renamed the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise in 2014, merged with the Southern franchise in 2015, with consideration now being given to breaking it up again.[3] Likewise the South Eastern franchise became the Integrated Kent franchise in 2006, and is being relet as the South Eastern franchise. The InterCity West Coast franchise is being relet as the West Coast Partnership while the Greater Anglia franchise became the East Anglia franchise. Independently of each rename, all three have been chopped and changed with routes and stations added and deleted mid-term. And other changes are proposed such as splitting the Greater Western franchise.[4]
Franchises are generally awarded for seven to ten years and in about half of cases, the incumbent successfully retains, so not as if they are turning over regularly. After 21 years of privatisation, of the franchises that have remained reasonably stable in terms of station structure, the highest number of franchisees for any is four, the troublesome InterCity East Coast. Of those that have not gone bust, ScotRail has changed operators twice and the rest once only or never.
Since 2016, all franchises have received generic brands as they have been relet (with intellectual property vested with the government rather than the franchisee) as specified in the contracts even when the incumbent has retained, e.g. Abellio Greater Anglia became Greater Anglia, First TransPennine Express became TransPennine Express. This will mean going forward, when a franchise changes hands from the outside it will be a seamless transition with the brand name and livery carrying across as happened when the ScotRail franchise passed from First ScotRail to Abellio ScotRail with only the small "proudly operated by xxx" markings changing. As the brand name will remain stable, there will be no need to rename categories.
In answer to the question about stations served by London Midland that are not served by West Midlands Trains, there aren't any as the franchise map in this case was unchanged, but in other cases it hasn't been a straight like-for-like changeover, e.g. CrossCountry does not call at stations on the West Coast Main Line that predecessor Virgin CrossCountry did. Agree it would be an overkill to have a category for every former railway company, with pre-1923 grouping companies this could run into dozens for some of the major stations, Manchester Piccadilly has been served by 14 train operating companies since 1996. Rollingsow (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If franchises are equally unstable we should consider categorizing of railway stations neither by railway company nor by franchise. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As fortunately the franchise is stable in this case I keep supporting the alt rename, should there be any doubt about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposed rename, i.e. Category:Railway stations served by West Midlands Trains. I was the original nominator of the speedy rename, am presuming this doesn’t end up counting as a duplicate vote, please delete if it does. Rollingsow (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom While the franchisee changes periodically, the scope of the franchise, in terms of stations served, hardly does. While we do not like categories that require regular maintenance, in these cases the work needed is merely a change of name. Unfortunately most of the franchises do not have a stable name, so that these periodic renames are necessary. ScotRail, East Anglia, and some others may have a stable name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per (original) nom Nightfury 09:29, 21 February 2018 (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:UK Polaris programme
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: Match similar category, recently renamed Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note the term is a purely Wikipedia construct. A Google N-grams search fails to find evidence for its use anywhere else. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:06, 20 February 2018 (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:Korean monarchs by century
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.
Reason There are pages by century for Korean monarchs from Category:10th-century Korean monarchs to Category:19th-century Korean monarchs; however some of the intermediate years use the term "monarchy" or "kings" though having the same content (i.e. individual monarchs). It is proposed to rename these accordingly. Hugo999 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support consistency between these category names but don't know if all Korean rulers currently in these categories can accurately be described as "monarchs." Category:Nth-century Korean royalty or Category:Nth-century Korean nobility might be less likely to drop articles out of the existing categories. (But I know nothing about Korean history. I'm just riffing off of the existing Asian nobility subcat names.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxplusone (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominated categories already use the term "monarchy" so "monarchs" seems not unreasonable. Hugo999 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2018 (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.