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:rename to clarify the scope of the category. See also this earlier discussion that is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 30 December 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:2009 establishments in Portland, Oregon
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. There is a weak consensus to keep this particular category. However, editors noted that this might not be the case for other cities. Cogent arguments were presented about fundamental problems with establishments-by-city categories, and a broader discussion (either of all the Portland categories, or of some wider set) might reach a different conclusion. But the nominator here chose to propose the merger of only one several by-year categories for this city (and gave no explanation for singling out this one), so there is no wider consensus here beyond the lack of a consensus to single out this one. -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have establishments by year by American city (e.g. no Category:2012 establishments in New York City) nor is there any scheme for Category:Establishments in Portland, Oregon by year. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why upmerge a category with 50 entries? I'd prefer creating similar city categories than deleting helpful ones. I believe the Portland-by-year categories have been discussed somewhere before (resulting in a keep vote), but I can't recall where that took place. ---Another Believer(Talk) 23:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you very much, User:Aboutmovies. I'm not sure I was right to say the result was a 'keep' vote, since the vote was really 'no consensus', but I remembered the categories not being deleted. ---Another Believer(Talk) 23:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'd be happy to create and populate Category:Establishments in Portland, Oregon by year if it helped. ---Another Believer(Talk) 01:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with this year because it's populated and it looks like earlier periods with lower article counts are grouped by decade. Where I would have concern is if someone tried to go back too far end ended up with one category after another with less than 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per population of this cateory (50 articles), its sibling categories (each having at leat 13 articles, and all but 2 having over 20) and the parent category (35 articles). I certainly wouldn't, right now, support such a scheme for the earlier decades (17-18 articles each), but certainly do here and in the next decade. And if you can find enough establishments for NYC for any specific year, I would support creating/keeping those, too. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Portland has a similar category for every year back to at least 2000, and they are all adequately populated. This level is appropriate when it can be adequately populated, which will probably only apply to major cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We don't have establishments by year by city yet because it hasn't been created yet. Nothing says it can't. J 1982 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge There are lots of problems with this plan. It might work well for a few years, but it will not work well for many. 2-city boundaries change a lot. This could lead to all sorts of definition debates that are best left unattacked. City boundaries change more than other geographical units. 3-if we really, really need to split below state level, which I doubt, we should probably go to county level. 4-a lot of us cities, such as "Detroit", "Chicago" and "Salt Lake City", are often used by some people to refer to metro areas, with differing and often unclear limits, as opposed to the city itself. Keeping this category is just inviting big problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. It's not useful to hyperorganize establishments or disestablishments all the way down to the level of the individual city. For one thing, as noted by JohnPackLambert people often use the name of a city as a shorthand for its entire metropolitan area — thus leading to editwarring over whether something in Yacolt, Washington was founded "in Portland" or not, whether something in Gary, Indiana is "in Chicago" or not, and on and so forth. For two, editors have a very unfortunate tendency of taking the existence of a few isolated city-level categories as an automatic license to create equivalent categories for any city as soon as there's just one thing that could technically be categorized that way, thus creating more unnnecessary work for other Wikipedians as soon as somebody decides that this reifies into justification for Category:2009 establishments in Alpena, Michigan or Category:2009 establishments in Coboconk, Ontario. (And this is not just me making a "slippery slope" argument, either — just witness the constant need to upmerge dedicated categories for mayors of small towns with just one or two entries, if you don't think this is actually a real problem that really exists.) For three, things can move: I can point, for example, to a restaurant chain that was started in my hometown and then expanded widely enough that it was felt necessary to move its head office to Toronto to better manage the whole shebang — so while categorizing it as established in Ontario is fine, it's not helpful to categorize it as established in a specific city that it isn't actually based in anymore. We simply don't need to go any lower than the state level in this tree. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A completely different reason for low enthusiasm for this category (which btw also applies to many other establishment categories that already exist): it combines very miscellaneous types of establishment into one category. The only commonalities of the category are time and place, but not content, while an encyclopedia should be about content in the first place. Ideally (from this particular POV), every article would only be categorized in Companies established, or Buildings completed, or Military units established etc.; while general Establishment categories that contain just time and place would merely be container categories. That would of course imply that time periods and/or places are defined broad enough, presumably never at city x year level (but it would probably be doable at city x decade level, for the larger cities). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2017 (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:15th-century Church of England churches
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: Specifically the church of england did not exist until the next century JarrahTree 15:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – there is no Category:English churches. Category:Churches in England includes churches of many denominations. The meaning seems to be "Church of England churches built in the 15th-century". Oculi (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis this refers to the current denomination, not the denomination when the church was built. Though I agree with the nominator, it is slightly confusing and probably not ideal. Sionk (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is not changed - Oculi's comment has to be included in the mainspace of the unchanged category to not make things look absurd - Church of England churches built in the 15th century were not church of england churches when they were built in that century JarrahTree 11:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Church England inherited relatively seamlessly the assets of the medieval (Catholic) church in England. The 17th century (and Elizabethan) Roman Catholic church in England was essentially founded from scratch. Until the re-foundation of the Roman Catholic Church there was only one church in England. However tt is inappropriate to call pre-reformation churches "Anglican" or "Church of England". Category:Churches in England built in the 15th-century would be accurate, but is unnecessarily long. Category:15th-century English churches or Category:15th-century churches in England both have the merit of being briefer, which is welcome in a category name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator - Peterkingiron's suggested alternative (have modified nomination link) JarrahTree 09:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative per Peterkingiron. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if we had articles on Churches built by Lollards in the 15th-century that could clearly be said to be different from the main Church, assuming such exist at all, I do not think they would merit such a seperation. Having one category for all Churches dating to the 15th-century in England works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative per Peterkingiron. SJK (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2017 (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:15th-century Anglican churches
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: The Anglican Church or church of england did not exist until after 1530 - or in the next century JarrahTree 14:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the ones at the top level are not in England. Oculi (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis this refers to the current denomination, not the denomination when the church was built. Though I somehow doubt there are any 15th century Anglican churches outside of Britain. Sionk (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anglicanism did not exist in the 15th century - the title is wrong and incorrect - some sort of clarification or sens of what is misleading about the title is needed in the main space, or the title - any suggestions apart from oppose ? JarrahTree 11:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given under Category:15th-century Church of England churches above. However all the articles here are r4elate to Wales, so that the target here needs to be Category:15th-century churches in Wales, with the subcategory moved up to a higher level. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative per Peterkingiron. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if a Category:15th-century churches in Wales is created. But this doesn't address the 'elephant in the room' of whether we cease or continue to categorise churches by their denomination. What happens to the remainder of the Category:Anglican churches category tree? Sionk (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point to take this discussion a bit broader. I think we can still categorise churches by denomination (a church building may belong to multiple denominational categories if the building changed ownership in the course of time), but not by the intersection of denomination and century built. This will probably need to be discussed in more depth on a different platform. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments in the next one down, where this one was repeated. We should not confuse historical/architectural categories with denominational ones. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative per Peterkingiron. The Anglican church didn't exist until the 16th century, so "15th century Anglican" is an anachronism. Categorising things by "century of construction" and "current denomination" is confusing, because it is sticking two facts from two different time periods (one from several centuries ago and one from today) together without making clear that is what it is doing. SJK (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2017 (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:14th-century Anglican churches
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: Anglicanism or the church of england did not exist as such in the 14th century JarrahTree 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the ones at the top level are not in England. Oculi (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis this refers to the current denomination, not the denomination when the church was built. Though I somehow doubt there are any 14th century Anglican churches outside of Britain. Sionk (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anglicanism did not exist - the absurdist sense needs to have either text in the mainspace or a change in the title - as it stands it is a furphy and historically inept JarrahTree 11:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support principle of nomination, but like with the nomination right above this one, it should become "in Wales" instead of "English". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Principle but Category:14th-century Churches in England would be better if we were dealing with England: for reasons see 15th century category. However here all the articles relate to Wales, so that the target should be Category:14th-century Churches in Wales, with the England subcat being moved up to be a sibling. We should not have a UK or GB category before the union of the crowns in 1603, and perhaps not before Parliamentary Union in 1707. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Principle - move to Category:14th-century Churches in Wales per PeterkingironJohnbod (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if a Category:14th-century churches in Wales (lower case) is created. But this doesn't address the 'elephant in the room' question which this CfD raises, of whether we cease or continue to categorise churches by their current denomination. What happens to the remainder of the Category:Anglican churches category tree? Sionk (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tree is reasonably valid & useful for most if not all sub-cats, which can only hold churches that were Anglican from the point of building. It is really only in British & Irish pre-Reformation churches that the clash with what ought to be essentially architectural categories is acute. Cats like "Anglican churches in London" are ok, let alone ones for New York or Mumbai. For essentially denominational cats the date of main building should be somewhat irrelevant. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a British/Irish issue alone, rather a general pre-Reformation issue. See example in the discussion below, Category:12th-century Church of Sweden church buildings. Potentially we can have a similar problem with post-Reformation-built churches that swapped denominational ownership in a later stage but I don't know how often this has occurred. The easiest way out is not to categorize by the intersection of denomination and century built. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2017 (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:14th-century Church of England churches
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: As pointed out on talk page the 'Church of England' as is commonly titled did not exist until after 1530 or the16th century - JarrahTree 14:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Category:Churches in England includes churches of many denominations. The meaning seems to be "Church of England churches built in the 14th-century". Oculi (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis this refers to the current denomination, not the denomination when the church was built. Though I agree with the nominator, it is slightly confusing and probably not ideal. Sionk (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The date refers to the architecture. Is there any utility at all in splitting such a category by current denomination? No, there isn't. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'Oculi's' phrase should be either in the main space of the category to reduce the absurdity of the current title - perhaps as a long title it would be too long ? suggestions appreciated, as it stands it is historically problematic in the sens it has potentially to convey JarrahTree 11:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments re above four proposals: If adopted the format should be "15th-century churches in England" not "15th-century English churches". This follows the format of "15th-century churches in the United Kingdom", Sweden etc; though note that the United Kingdom was formed in the 19th-century and centuries before the 19th-century are Category:18th century in Great Britain etc so using the term Great Britain not United Kingdom. While I think the intention of say "14th-century Church of England churches" is to refer to 14th-century churches which later became Church of England, this could mean that most Category:Standing Anglo-Saxon churches from the 9th-century or earlier (St Martin's Church, Canterbury goes back to the 6th century) could be classed as (say) "9th-century Church of England churches". I think though there would be too few per century and just "9th-century churches in England" would be preferable. Re non-Church of England Anglican churches, there would be some early (now Episcopal) churches in Scotland, Ireland and Wales; but not enough to be classified separately by century? Hugo999 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we will be tieing ourselves in more knots if we rename the category tree. Things/places are generally categories by the current manifestation/location. These churches are currently Anglican (and generally have been for centuries). Otherwise we will end up allowing all of these churches to be categorised as 'Roman Catholic' which, if historically true, is even more unhelpful. Sionk (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category is for individual Church of England church buildings in England.
The Swedish example is a typical WP:OSE type of reasoning. The name of the Swedish category is equally confusing and should be renamed per this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is because these categories are all based on "century of building" and "current denomination" Hugo999 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The focus is on the time and place of the Church, the theology that has dominated these Churches, assuming that they lasted into the 16th-century, has been a matter of political debate, but that has no bearing on what it was when they begin, which is what we are categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the change as stated at the beginning. I guess I started this mess by naming this category. My logic had been that there was a category for the 15th century. I capitalized Church because "Church of England" was the present religion in analogy to "Roman Catholic". I recognize the anachronism of the term, but I was categorizing churches according to religion, and I did not think it was fair to call a church in England that is now Anglican, a 14th-century Roman Catholic church building. Relative to the choices above, I would prefer to keep a reference to the present religious affiliation (or what the building has mostly been) and the date. Again there are, for example, "18th-century Roman Catholic churches in England" and "18th-century Church of England churches in England", and both these would fall under a category of "18th-century churches in England". I acknowledge that protestant assignment of churches prior to the reformation is awkward, however, I still think it is valid. If I walk into a Lutheran church in Germany built in the 12th century, I still do not expect to see the same décor as I would in a 12th-century Roman Catholic church, even if the architecture is similar. I have no objection to changing Church of England to Anglican.Rococo1700 (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is confusing to refer to something as a "14th-century Church of England church" when it was actually a Roman Catholic church then, even if it so happens to be a Church of England church now. "14th-century churches in England" avoids all confusion, since until the 16th century there was only one Christian denomination active in England (Roman Catholicism), so there is no need to categorise English churches by denomination in the 15th century and earlier. SJK (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2017 (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:Order of Merit of the Principality of Liechtenstein
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 "Grand Stars" subcategory is only given to members of the royal family who are already well categorized under Category:House of Liechtenstein. The "Grand Crosses" subcategory are souvenirs for visiting officials who are already categorized by the office from their own country (for instance, Category:Vice-Chancellors of Austria). In both cases the award is secondary to the underlying reason for notability. If we decide to delete these categories, the recipients are listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- OCAWARD. Awards made to members of the princely family and foreign heads of government do not seem to merit a category. I think there is already a sufficient list. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a case of overcategorizing by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2017 (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:Recipients of the Grand Order of Mugunghwa
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.
Background We deleted medals given to foreign officials by Venezuela and Afghanistan here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is another case of overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2017 (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:Starz Entertainment Group
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: Lionsgate and Starz have completed their merger yesterday, so the current/active Starz companies (such as Anchor Bay and Starz Encore) would be moved into the Lionsgate subsidiaries category, while the the inactive/former companies (such as Overture Films) would be moved into the Former Lionsgate subsidiaries category. 47.54.146.61 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Been a few days, Just Be Bold Lipsquid (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose this is just a proposal, without a clear rationale to explain why. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξxplicit 02:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this smacks of some PR person at Lionsgate using Wikipedia to announce a takeover. Even if Starz Entertainment Group had been bought by another company, surely their companies are (currently) best known as Starz? Sionk (talk) 22:41, 30 December 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.