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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stately homes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is completely meaningless and unencyclopedic. At best, it's a term for tourists and those promoting such properties. The term is not clearly defined in any scholarly work. The category introduces itself: "A Stately home is a palatial country house situated within the British Isles" This statement is completely without value - whose definition of stately home is this? Who says they can only be in the UK? Who is saying as a species they exist at all? - Who says they must be palatial? Who is saying they must be in the country? In short, what scholarly source is defining what is or is not a "stately home". What is planned to be the criteria for including or excluding a house from this category? It's going to be impossible because this is a vague and encyclopedic term. The principle article iteslf is misleading, uninformed and full of POV and errors - there is no unchallenged list of the top ten "stately homes" anywhere - [1] it is ridiculous; if there were ever such a list,what would it be based on? - architecture, contents, famous occupants or today's visitor numbers? Amusingly of terrifyingly (depending on your viewpoint) the top 10 and category does not seem to currently know of one of the nost important in anybody's book. Giacomo Returned 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the nom says anything to do with this term is quite subjective and thus original research. the article itself is full of original research and should be changed to a redirect to English country house. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection. The term is well-accepted, orthodox, clearly defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, vol.XVI, 1989, p.559: "stately home: originally in allusion to quotation of 1827 (i.e. Blackwood's Magazine, as mentioned in WP article); now a fixed phrase designating a great country house". Indeed it is less subjective than the very broad term "Country house" favoured by the proposer for this deletion. A stately home is thus a "great country house", not just a "country house" which can vary in size from 4 bedrooms upwards, as proposer has stated on the talk page. The term is therefore fairly precise and thus has usefulness in the English language. There is room for both terms as alternative and overlapping designations. The above request appears to be motivated by a strong personal animosity to the term, which has been the matter of discussion on the talk page of Stately home, which needs to be consulted before this category is considered for deletion. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Defining the category as a "great [ie 4 or more bedrooms] country house" will only work if the definition of "country house" is non-subjective and self-evident. The article English country house states that this term "is generally accepted as a large house or mansion, once in the ownership of an individual who also usually owned another great house in town allowing one to spend time in the country and in the city." In my opinion, there are just too many caveats here ("generally accepted", "usually", etc.) for this to work as a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since there is a main article for the category. Stately home and English country house are distinguished, at least in the lede of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you should read Stately Home and its talk page. The whole definition is unreferenced, contraversial and vague. Giacomo Returned 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then, merge the two articles first (or get them deleted) and this becomes a no-brainer. Mangoe (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment when you look at the unfinished discussion on Stately Home's talk page it is obvious that bringing this to CfD now is premature. It should be closed now as unresolved and relisted when there is a clear understanding of definitions. Ephebi (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There won't be a clear understanding of definition because there isn't one, that's the whole pint of this discussion. One man's eight bedroomed weekend retreat is another man's stately home, some people call a huge London mansion open to the public a stately home others call it a town house - other people call a semi-derelict former mental home that was once a Victorian private house a stately home. you can say Grand houses, Big Houses, Noble Houses and Power Houses, but the only term clearly understood, defined and referenced is Country House or English Country House. Giacomo Returned 07:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Oxford English Dictionary, 20 volume edition, is clear. A stately home is a "great country house". The term exists and has done so for 184 years, yet application has now been made effectively to suppress it from the English language. Very un-WP I would suggest. Great country house cannot be an 8 bedroomed London house (that would be a medium-sized city house), "great" here means "large", not "historically important", as for example Sulgrave Manor, a relatively small manor house, birthplace of ancestors of George Washington, included in Nigel Nicholson's book "Great Houses of Britain" (p.66:"still standing as a common farm house by the end of the 19th.c.") If the term is used incorrectly, as implied by the proposer above, the article should attempt to explain the correct usage. It should be a work of collaborative, calmly reasoned editing to shape this article & category. If there is widespread antipathy to the term in some quarters, that fact will be of interest to the reader & should form a section of the article itself - if sources can be provided supporting that stance (not alluded to by OED) - explaining the reasons and groups of society who don't like it. It was a term good enough for the 13th Duke of Bedford to use when describing the beauty of his own residence of Woburn in his autobiography of 1959 (see talk page for ref). If the proposer can prove that no stately homes exist any longer in the British Isles, then I would agree the article & category should be deleted. That is far from being the case. I suggest this application be definitively refused so that our efforts can be more productively expended on shaping the article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

  When researching "starely homes", you might like to buy a copy of this [2] a book "We Started a Stately Home" - the owner wrote it when he opened the house Brympton d'Evercy to the public (yeah, I wrote that page too). You will note it is a comparatively (to Chatworth and Blenheim etc) small house (even though it has a suite of Baroque state-apartments), its owner whose family had been in possession for centuries) did not regard it as a stately home until he opened it to the public. In other words, became part of the "stately home industry." which of course many large/grand/manor/country houses are not. This term is indefinable and you are seeking to define it without references. Giacomo Returned 19:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify if the information should be retained. From what I can see, the inclusion criteria are subjective and that can not be the case for a category. Inclusion criteria need to be objective. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if essential, "defining" features of article subject are ever developed per WP:CATEGORY then the "Stately homes" category can be resurrected. WP:CATEGORY specifically disallows "categories based on incidental or subjective features." --Marc Kupper|talk 19:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Retain:WP:CATEGORY's criteria, reproduced below for convenience, have been mis-interpreted above. All criteria have been met:

"Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles (Check). They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject.(Check) They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects,(Check) such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features (Check)"

Every one of these requirements has been satisfactorily met by Category:Stately home, as follows: "Essential" here means a feature which is "of the very essence" of the subject. The "stately homeliness" (sorry, invented term) of Chatsworth is indeed its very essence, i.e. its grandeur, size & stateliness. ("Stately", OED: "Princely, noble, majestic, imposingly dignified"). These houses were built to impress & to be imposing & stately; stateliness not shelter-giving was their primary raison d'etre. Again, Chatsworth is defined by its grandeur, size & stateliness. Stateliness is indeed a defining feature of Chatsworth House (more so arguably than the fact it is located in the countryside which warrants its inclusion in the overlapping category "Country house"). "Stately home" would be the most natural category for a reader to look for to find articles on palatial English country houses, for example an American visitor to Britain. The Stateliness of Chatsworth is not a mere incidental feature, rather its very essence. An incidental feature might be that its window-frames are gilded. Stateliness does become subjective when the size of property is significantly less (i.e. no longer a "great"/large house) than the largest of these buildings, but there is no subjectivity at all in the case of Chatsworth, Blenheim, Castle Howard etc. There is a subjective area around the fringes of any definition - that has to be dealt with (i.e., is a certain writer a "poet" or not, when is a castle better defined as a "fortified manor house", etc.). I am confident that will not be a more major problem than with most other categories. If you asked 10 ordinary people (i.e. WP readers) selected at random what sort of house Chatsworth was, holding up a picture for them to look at, I would be surprised if 9/10 did not immediately reply: "stately home". The remaining 1 might say "Country house". The category does indeed meet all the WP:CATEGORY guidelines for its continued existence, and should not therefore be deleted. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete (contents all adequately categorized already I think). No satisfactory definition distinguishing these from other country houses has been produced, or is likely to be. The term is not an academic one, and deciding and assessing the degree of "stateliness" needed to cross the borderline must always be personal and subjective. This makes it unsuitable as the basis of a category. We don't in fact have any "overlapping category "Country house" - perhaps we should; it would be far less subjective than this. You will notice we don't have categories based on size, which this essentially is, unless there is some objective and widely-accepted criterion that can be used, and here there just isn't. The current 11 articles clearly are very far from complete. I notice the category is itself uncategorized btw. If kept it should be split into "..in England" etc, and greatly expanded. The creator's personal criteria here seem to me to be far stricter than those of most English people, who would use the term of a much wider range of houses. The article should be merged to English country house for similar reasons. I notice the term seems to have a very different meaning in the Mid-West of the US, where 11 rooms and a 3-car garage is apparently enough to qualify -[3]. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A term that is as subjective in its applicability as this one obviously cannot be used for a category. --Hegvald (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2011 (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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 19. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tunbridge Wells Rangers F.C. players to Category:Tunbridge Wells F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: New and correct name of the football club in question. GiantSnowman 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Request moved from Wikipedia:Requested moves by Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2011 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB to Category:Articles sourced only by IMDb

Nominator's rationale: The database has been (and always will be) called IMDb. All of the monthly cleanup categories should be renamed as well. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those will need to be listed individually. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing these from IMDB to IMDb seems fine to me. Various templates would need to be renamed too, including:

• Template:BLP IMDB refimprove
• Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove
• Template:BLP IMDB refimprove/doc
• Template:BLP IMDB-only refimprove/doc
• Template:BLP IMDB refimprove/sandbox
• Template:BLP sources/doc (just in the See also section i think)

And, FYI, i notice one other template using IMDB rather than IMDb:

• Template:IMDB DISAMBIG

--doncram 11:23, 11 April 2011 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles sourced by IMDB to Category:Articles sourced by IMDb

Nominator's rationale: The database has been (and always will be) called IMDb. All of the monthly cleanup categories should be renamed as well. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those will need to be listed individually. Lugnuts (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, looking into it, the categories are derived from the template ((tl:BLP IMDB refimprove)). Lugnuts (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So does this CFD need to be accompanied by a wp:TFD to change the templates' names, and contents? See related templates listed above in preceding section. I support all changes from IMDB to IMDb as I guess that is more technically correct. --doncram 15:07, 11 April 2011 (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 to Category:Wikipedians interested in Scream (franchise). I'm going a bit off the grid here, because there is no consensus to delete, but there is discomfort over the "like" aspect of the category name. Since there are six subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film series, it seems logical to me to add this as a seventh, and make it conform to the conventions of that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who like Scream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Not useful for collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why can't it stay? You can have so many other categories, why not this? -Dpm12 11 April 2011 8:25 AM PDT
  • You'll find the details at Wikipedia:User categories. Basically, these categories should be linked to the betterment of the project and not for socializing. Pichpich (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There is Category:Wikipedians by interest in a film series, but the subcategories mostly are populated by 'fan' templates. I am inclined to agree with Pichpich regarding the usefulness (or lack thereof) of this type of categories, yet am a bit reluctant to single out one category out of eight ... on the other hand, perhaps this could serve as a test nomination for the others. If there is no consensus to delete, rename to Category:Wikipedians who like Scream (film series) (per Category:Scream (film series)) or Category:Wikipedians who like Scream (franchise) (per Scream (franchise)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My initial thought was delete as this was about a single article. Wikipedians who like Scream would likely be discovered on Talk:Scream (franchise). I then did a Google search for site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:"Category:Wikipedians who like" and discovered there are at least 576 categories very much like the one for Scream and also that there are at least two articles, plus the articles for the creators and principals involved in the series/film. I suspect it would satisfy the nominators if the category page stated "The purpose of this user category is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the Scream (film) and Scream (franchise) articles about the American horror slasher film and series created by Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven." If it survives AFD I'd second moving the category to Category:Wikipedians who like Scream (franchise) as Scream is ambiguous and franchise covers both the series and film. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:37, 18 April 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2C per convention of matching institution name. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Xavier University (Cincinnati) alumni to Category:Xavier University alumni

Nominator's rationale: There's no need to disambiguate as the article and the other categories do not disambiguate. Tavix |  Talk  00:57, 11 April 2011 (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.