May 4
Category:Shopping malls in Spokane, Washington
- 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 to Category:Shopping malls in Washington (state) and Category:Buildings and structures in Spokane, Washington. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT#SMALL. Only three articles; the Spokane market does not appear to have had any other major malls at any point, just a couple of small non-notable local ones. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would not call 3 entries a "small" category for buildings, and both Spokane and Spokane Valley (especially the latter) are growing at a fast rate, so it would not be unprecedented if more malls were built in the area in the near future. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But Spokane Valley has its own category tree, independent from Spokane. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Spokane Valley only became a separate city in 2000, and there is no category called Category:Shopping malls in Spokane Valley, Washington (although one can certainly be created if there are enough potential articles). My initial argument remains, that I don't think WP:SMALLCAT applies here. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dual merge per Hmains. SMALLCAT definitely applies, also considering the fact that one of the three articles does not even belong here (it can be purged, it is already in the Spokane Valley category). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2021 (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:Moi dix Mois songs
- 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Only one member of the category, a redirect, no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2021 (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:Songs written by Tyler Cole
- 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The subject of this category, Tyler Cole, is a redirect to the discography page of another person, there is only member to the category. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I created the category, I was unaware that "Tyler Cole" was a redirect – I believed that it would show as a red link (the redirect should be deleted to encourage article creation, but that's not relevant to this discussion). I will attempt to find other articles which can populate this category, but as far as I'm aware, there's no protocol stating categories with one entry should be deleted. Anyone's welcome to correct me on that if that's not the case. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sean Stephens:. Before nominating I did check whether there could be other entries and found none. If there had been two or more articles I would not have nominated, you are right, categories are links between articles that have the same defining characteristics and there is no compunction to have a relevant article. However, my nomination is based on one link in a cat serves no purpose, as stated above, 'No assistance to navigation.' If anything changes happy to remove my delete nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richhoncho: Ah okay, that makes sense — I completely understand where you're coming from now. I agree with your reasoning for nominating this for deletion, and support deleting these categories as this point in time. Thank you for both further explaining your viewpoint, and for acting in good faith. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2021 (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:Song recordings produced by Tyler Cole
- 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The subject of this category, Tyler Cole, is a redirect to the discography page of another person, there is only member to the category. No assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (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:Battles involving the Safavid dynasty
- 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) 01:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: More appropriate, considering the main article is named Safavid Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2021 (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.
Neopagans
- 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. I will leave redirects since both terms are used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming
- Category:Neopagans to Category:Modern Pagans
- Category:Neopagans by nationality to Category:Modern Pagans by nationality
- Category:Neopagans by occupation to Category:Modern Pagans by occupation
- Category:Neopagans of Jewish descent to Category:Modern Pagans of Jewish descent
- Category:American neopagans to Category:American Modern Pagans
- Category:Armenian neopagans to Category:Armenian Modern Pagans
- Category:Australian neopagans to Category:Australian Modern Pagans
- Category:Austrian neopagans to Category:Austrian Modern Pagans
- Category:Belgian neopagans to Category:Belgian Modern Pagans
- Category:Brazilian neopagans to Category:Brazilian Modern Pagans
- Category:British neopagans to Category:British Modern Pagans
- Category:Canadian neopagans to Category:Canadian Modern Pagans
- Category:Danish neopagans to Category:Danish Modern Pagans
- Category:Discrimination against Neopagans to Category:Discrimination against Modern Pagans
- Category:Dutch neopagans to Category:Dutch Modern Pagans
- Category:English neopagans to Category:English Modern Pagans
- Category:French neopagans to Category:French Modern Pagans
- Category:German neopagans to Category:German Modern Pagans
- Category:Greek neopagans to Category:Greek Modern Pagans
- Category:Icelandic neopagans to Category:Icelandic Modern Pagans
- Category:Indian neopagans to Category:Indian Modern Pagans
- Category:Irish neopagans to Category:Irish Modern Pagans
- Category:Italian neopagans to Category:Italian Modern Pagans
- Category:Latvian neopagans to Category:Latvian Modern Pagans
- Category:Lithuanian neopagans to Category:Lithuanian Modern Pagans
- Category:Mexican neopagans to Category:Mexican Modern Pagans
- Category:Neopagans from Northern Ireland to Category:Modern Pagans from Northern Ireland
- Category:Norwegian neopagans to Category:Norwegian Modern Pagans
- Category:Polish neopagans to Category:Polish Modern Pagans
- Category:Portuguese neopagans to Category:Portuguese Modern Pagans
- Category:Russian neopagans to Category:Russian Modern Pagans
- Category:Scottish neopagans to Category:Scottish Modern Pagans
- Category:Serbian neopagans to Category:Serbian Modern Pagans
- Category:Spanish neopagans to Category:Spanish Modern Pagans
- Category:Swedish neopagans to Category:Swedish Modern Pagans
- Category:Syrian neopagans to Category:Syrian Modern Pagans
- Category:Turkish neopagans to Category:Turkish Modern Pagans
- Category:Ukrainian neopagans to Category:Ukrainian Modern Pagans
- Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article Modern Paganism and Category:Modern Paganism. This is follow-up on yesterday's nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Note the main discrimination article uses "Neopagans" (capitalised). Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, Neopagan is by far the more frequently used term, I have rarely ever heard any organization call itself "modern pagan". A quick google search confirms this. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I will happily withdraw this nomination when the article rename is reverted by RM. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2021 (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:Bishops by nationality
- 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: from this discussion and the DRV, it is evident that there is a consensus to not merge/rename as proposed. Whether this means there is a desire to have parallel categories for "bishops by nationality" and "bishops by country" is unclear. A scheme for expatriate bishops by nationality seems to be developing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is a relist that is the result of a CFD that was taken to DRV. The original CFD is here. The DRV is here. Pinging original nominator Rathfelder, participants in original CFD Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, Kevlar, Carlossuarez46, William Allen Simpson, and Johnpacklambert. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I still support the content of the nomination, i.e. I think that emigrants with an occupation in their new country rather than in their country of origin should be categorized by occupation + new nationality instead of by occupation + old nationality, in fact I thought that was even in one of the categorization guidelines - but I can't find it and after several follow-up discussions it became apparent that there is not enough consensus for that logic. So from that perspective the proposed mergers cannot go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Its pretty obvious that at a country level most editors do not see the distinction between "by nationality" and "by country", so we need something which works at that level. What does not work is two unrelated heirarchies, one by country and one by nationality. At a country level "Fooish bishops" is ambiguous, as it doesnt specify whether it is the the nationality of the bishop or the country of the diocese. We can exploit that ambiguity. Below that we can have "Bishops in Foo", which can include those who are nationals of another country. I dont really care whether we merge the top level or not, so long as it works at a country level. So my proposal:
Bishops should primarily be categorised by the country of their diocese, not, normally, their personal nationality, and the same considerations should apply to archbishops. They are both attached to a location and that is what makes them notable. We use Bishops of Blah to indicate that Blah is the name of the diocese. Bishops in Foo means that the diocese is in Foo. We should try to categorise all the bishops and archbishops by diocese, although that is not always practicable (and titular bishops dont generally have dioceses), but the country categories should primarily be populated with the diocesan subcategories.
Fooish bishops indicates their personal nationality and can be used for expatriate/migrant bishops. But generally its clearer to categorise migrants as Fooish priests, because generally they are consecrated in their diocese, not in their country of origin. That is not true of cardinals, and they should be categorised by nationality. Lower rank clergy might need to be categorised either by nationality or by location, or sometimes by both. The country to which they are attached should, as far as possible, be the country as it was when they were there, not the country now, because established churches were entangled with the state.
Most ecclesiastical migrants move early in their career. It's very rare, at least in the last 300 years, for people to move after they have been consecrated as a bishop. So I dont really like the migrant bishop categories. I think as they stand they are misleading and should be renamed.Rathfelder (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all - this is a thoroughly confused nomination. If Rathfelder wishes to eliminate say Category:English bishops he should recommend an upmerge to something, eg Category:English clergy. The recommendation of a downmerge to Category:Bishops in England (if you believe that all 'Bishops in England' are English, a belief which I do not share) is highly unusual (and leaves 'English bishops' in Category:Bishops by country, which is silly); if you believe as I do that Category:Bishops in England and Category:English bishops are not in a parent/child relationship (a Bishop in England is not necessarily English; an English bishop is not necessarily in England) then this is a sideways merge, even more ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all There have been way, way too many bishops over time who were expatriates for this move to make any sense at all. We have whole categories of expatriate bishops in fact. An American who went to Liberia or Angola to be a bishop in the early 20th-century did not become Liberian or Angoloan, nor did a French man who was serving as Catholic bishop over what is now Zimbabwe in the early 20th-century in any way become a national of that place, nor did a Spaniard appointed bishop in Mexico in 1924 become a Mexican, the government there fully implemented policies affirming this view in 1926. A person born in Pennsylvania with German and Italian and Irish ancestry does not become "American Samoan" just because they are appointed bishop over that place. I could go on and on and on. Nationality and country served in are not the same at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that these bishops did not become nationals of their host countries? Most of them stayed there until they died. Rathfelder (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all per @Oculi: rationale. See also the tree Category:Expatriate bishops which I have largely built out and populated. Most nations who gave their sons to their colonies or diaspora as bishops now have a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not suggesting any changes to national categories. I just dont want two categories per country, as most editors will not understand the difference. I think 'Bishops in England' should be a subcategory of 'English bishops'. Most bishops in England are English, but 'English bishops' is helpfully ambiguous. If you have a better solution to this problem can you please tell us what you propose? Rathfelder (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose all these CFDs of bishop categories lately has been downright problematic and confusing. The rational behind this is that bishops from country X don't always serve in country X, and should be categories by the latter and not the former, but this logic could be applied to any occupation. Not all American lawyers practice law in the United States, but I don't think that should warrant a CFD for the lawyer category tree. Also the way sub-divisions and diocese/eparchies work differ greatly from denomination to denomination, the role of "bishop" in the Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodist churches is all different to some degree, and lumping them all together is not helpful in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the same as with most other occupations, because bishops are bishops of a territory. The most similar occupation is governors for whom we have a tree by country rather than by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is not the same because bishops are officers of a church, not a government. There are also some who hold the office of bishop but do not have an assigned territory. We have pointed out over and over and over again cases where the nationality of origin is clearly at play in a case where a bishop was assigned in a different country and clearly did not in any way become a national of the new place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1/ Bishops are officers of a church, not a government. So what? 2/ There are also some who hold the office of bishop but do not have an assigned territory. That is only a small minority and obviously we would not categorize them by territory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bishops are most like priests. A large number of priests have specific areas they are assigned to. Yet we categorize priests by nationality only, and do not try to create by country categories for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that priests - if they are notable - are not notable at all for running a parish, while bishops are notable (among others) for running a diocese. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishops are defined by their diocese in a way which is rather different from priests. And the distinction between officers of a church and officers of a government does not really hold for the established churches historically. Bishops were often appointed or approved by the ruler. Of course many priests started in a different country, and some returned to their country of origin, but there is very little suggestion in most of the articles that the original nationality of the bishop was significant. Most of them stayed and died in their diocese, and quite likely become citizens of their new country. I've only found 3 articles about bishops which said anything about their nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We have thousands of articles on bishops from Churches that were in no way established and needed no approval at all from the ruler. Your arguments fail when they are considered against the actual contents. Your view that most bishops became citizens of the new country is just plain wrong, and ignores how many bishops were essentially foriegn agents working with a colonial establishment, how many felt themselves totally foriegn and serving a largely expatriate Church and so many other cases of bishops who never in any way felt a connection to their new place. I could easily come up with over 1000 bishops that categorizing them as nationals of the country they served as bishops for would create major offense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Go on then. Produce your list. The large majority of articles about bishops are actually about bishops in the Catholic churches. Until quite recently their appointment was negotiated between the Vatican and the ruler precisely because they exercised authority in the country of appointment. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here it goes. Harry Roberts Carson, Paul Francis Duffy, Paul Leonard Hagarty, Hiram Richard Hulse, David Reed (bishop), C. Alfred Voegeli. Not one of those could in any way be described as a national of the location where they served as bishop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is proposing to describe them as nationals of those locations. But they are notable as bishops in the countries where they served and they were not bishops (nor very notable) in the USA. Rathfelder (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You (Rathfelder) have made hundreds of edits making exactly this assertion: eg here you are categorising all bishops in Jamaica as Jamaican. Oculi (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2021 (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:Toastmasters members
- 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) 01:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Toastmasters members
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
- I certainly can't claim WP:SMALLCAT here because the Toastmasters International has served over 4 million people with their program to help improve public speaking skills. The broad reach of this organization creates a category with no common thread; I can't imagine the Wikipedia reader who would want a direct navigational path between actor Leonard Nimoy, Senator Sam Nunn, astronaut John Young, tennis great Billie Jean King, and General Bikram Singh. Critically, none of those articles even mention Toastmasters. (There are a few articles on organizational leaders--1, 2, 3--and that article count might grow to allow for a more narrow category.) I copied all the current categories right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. Just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2021 (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 Zentrale Dombauverein zu Köln von 1842
- 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) 01:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Members of the Zentrale Dombauverein zu Köln von 1842
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT
- The Zentral-Dombauverein zu Köln von 1842 ("Central Cathedral Building Society of 1842") is the fundraising committee for the completion and maintenance of Cologne Cathedral. The association can't be very defining since not a single one of the articles in the category even mention this organization. I copied all the current categories right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a defining characteristic. Just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2021 (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.