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. ℯxplicit 02:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I said in the last discussion, I think the word "churches" is more commonly used to refer to the buildings rather than the organisations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I was unhappy with the outcome of that discussion as well. While the word 'church' may be used for buildings as well, 'church building' is a very reasonable alternative. On the other hand, when it is about organizations, 'church' is by far the best word. It's not coincidental that they are named "Church of England", "Catholic Church", etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually supporting the nomination but at the same time I wonder if we can put aside the previous discussion to which so many editors contributed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also was unhappy with the outcome of that discussion. Per WP:Precision, the nom is superior. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A church is primarily a building, not an organisation. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the subject is NOT about church buildings. Church has multiple uses. The subject category is mainly about everything but buildings. Purge it is individual buildings (which should be in appropriate church buildings categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: I think with your explanation you might support the nomination, since the current content of the category is about church buildings. As you mention, they should be in appropriate church buildings categories, that is exactly what the nomination aims for. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, WE need this as a parent for all nuances of the word "church". I would Support moving all the articles as nom and making this a container only, probably withy a headnote saying that individual local churches and church buildings should be in church buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If this nom goes ahead, then a new cat of "Church organisations" can be created for all churchy things not made of bricks and mortar. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The Church is not the building, and the building is not the Church. In a recent deletion discussion someone pointed out that I "attend the same Church as the subject nominated for deletion", which I did not dispute. Even though I have never met the person, he does not go to any of the 4 church buildings where I attend Church in my complicated process of attending Church as an engaged member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose fiancee is in a branch that meets in a different building than his ward, another building I go to is the stake center, also a church building. In fact I can confidently say that I have never been in the same Sunday church services as the man in question, but I still fully accept that I go to the same Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support I've been thinking about this off and on, and I keep coming back to the same conclusion: clarity isn't going to hurt anyone. The ambiguity between church-as-building and church-as-organization and church-as-metaphysical-body is not improved by trying to count brains according which of the three they think of first when they hear the word. Calling these "church buildings" (and the vast number are specifically about the physical structure and not the congregation) is clear and really uncontroversial outside of some Wikipedia guideline about naming, and WP:IAR surely implies "you shall not put the rules above all else." Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support since drawing the category space closer to situation in the article space. Many objections above belong to a discussion that could be held in the article space. gidonb (talk) 10:05, 22 November 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:Tokyo mew mew
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: With only four articles and four images, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:46, 25 October 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:Rainbow Brite
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: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if the category ever gets up to 5 or so articles.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 28 October 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:The Mysterious Cities of Gold
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: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a video game article which brings the category up to 5 articles which is my personal cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:37, 28 October 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:K-tai Investigator 7
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: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now My count is only two articles since it's unclear why Nakitai Nara is in the category. No objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:43, 28 October 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:Toriko
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, duplicate nomination while the previous discussion hasn't been closed yet. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You had already nominated this one on the 22nd. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:12, 25 October 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:Mirmo!
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: With only two articles and an image, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 28 October 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:Oha Suta
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: With only one article, this is too few members for categorization. (WP:SMALLCAT) Creator tried to add this category to other television series articles without citing sources that those series had any connection to this television series. —Farix (t | c) 10:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The category had been emptied but I repopulated it, finding 2 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now' No objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment meanwhile there are 7 articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The category creator, editing under IPs, randomly threw in a bunch of actress articles into the category in order to pad it out. I've now removed them. —Farix (t | c) 11:00, 2 November 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:Fushigiboshi no Futagohime
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: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 25 October 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:Battle Spirits
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: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 25 October 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:Spider Riders
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: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:59, 28 October 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:Kirby:Right Back at Ya!
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: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 10:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The category had been emptied so I repopulated it but only found 2 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 28 October 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:People from Pietrykaŭ District
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.
Category:People from Pietrykaŭ District to Category:People from Pietrykaw District – C2D Pietrykaw District92.226.208.223 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Page was moved without discussion. I oppose the move. AusLondonder (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move, the category must follow the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move The category names need to blindly follow the article names so we don't end up encouraging forum shopping. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Tobias Conradi was recently pushing the moves of names of Belarusian localities from Lacynka to Romanization, but since it followed the previously established consensus of users in good standing I did not oppose these nominations.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when Tobias is right. If someone in good standing is fine with it after evaluation then I don't oppose it. Usually the sock farm makes a huge number of edits and typically only less than 20% are beneficial. —SpacemanSpiff 00:35, 29 October 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:18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain
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. – FayenaticLondon 18:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigh. For the umpteenth time, the state differs from the island. Yes they are close but not close enough. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Reverse SplitCategory:18th century in Great Britain -> Category:18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Category:18th century in the Kingdom of England and Category:18th century in the Kingdom of Scotland. We do not generally keep "years in island" categories, but rather "years in <foo state/kingdom>.GreyShark (dibra) 18:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. Essentially GB and the Kingdom of GB were coterminous. Isle of Wight, Hebrides, etc may technically be out-islands, but they were part of GB. The distinction that the subject did not exist 1700-07 is also over-pedantic. GB and Ireland shared a monarch. As foreign relations are a matter of the Royal Prerogative, the three kingdoms only had one lot of foreign relations, conducted for the crown by two Secretaries of State in London. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and precedent, and to avoid duplication. As with other similar categories, the scope here is geographical rather than political. We tend to use political boundaries to demarcate the geography, but there is a lot of fuzziness around it. Some of the entities used are former states (e.g. England); some are not-yet states, e.g. Category:Ireland by century starts with the Category:1st century in Ireland, even tho the island wasn't a de facto single political entity until at least the 6th century. We do this because, per WP:CAT, categs on en.wp are a navigational tool, not a Linnean system of perfect classification. These by-century categs could arguably be named after the island or the state, but the scope is identical in either case, so the "Great Britain"/"Kingdom of Great Britain" duplication is solely a duplication which does nothing to help navigation between articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The scopes here are geographical and political: 2 different scopes for two different entities. The (corrected) example cited of Category:Centuries in Ireland is actually a powerful argument for "Keep" as it clearly has a scope for the entire island with a different tree carrying the scope for the state Category:Centuries in the Republic of Ireland. It would be humbug to have a category of Category:1st-century in the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. More nonsense from LL. There is no practical difference in the scope of "18th century in the Kingdom of Great Britain" and "18th century in Great Britain", and LL doesn't even try to demonstrate a difference. One is derived from geography and the other from politics, but in this context they mean the same thing. By contrast the Category:Centuries in the Republic of Ireland has a geographical scope approximately 1/6 smaller than its parent Category:Centuries in Ireland. It is sad that LL continues to disrupt CFD by cluttering the discussion with self-evidently irrelevant comparators. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No one would exclude the Isle of Wight from the target category, especially if this meant we would end up with the resulting bizarre categories. This is just an attempt by some to be overly pedantic for no good reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 2 November 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:Disestablishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain
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. – FayenaticLondon 18:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigh. For the umpteenth time, the state differs from the island. Yes they are close but not close enough. Islands do not disestablish things, only governments in states disestablish things. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back BHG! Warning: BHG ad hominem attacks imminent. Meanwhile, we'll continue in good faith. (1) So we have Category:Disestablishments in the Dominican Republic and Category:Disestablishments in Haiti but no corresponding category for the island - Hispaniola. Similarly, we have Category:Establishments in East Timor but no corresponding category for the island - Timor. Similarly, we have Category:Establishments in Papua New Guinea but no corresponding category for the island - New Guinea. (2) When it is said "disestablishments in GB", are we to take it that this means (2.1) "disestablishments in the Kingdom of Great Britain"; (2.2) "disestablishments in the island of Great Britain"; (2.3) "disestablishments in either the Kingdom of Great Britain or in the island of Great Britain because they are so close as to be inseparable"? (3) Where is the precedent for lots of establishment categories by an island, not for a state of the same name? For example, the island of Australia has existed for a very long time, yet the Category:Establishments in Australia by millennium only lists a couple of centuries from the time of the establishment of the colony / dominion / state. Why so? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LL still misses the 2 v simple points at stake: a) these categories have a geographical scope, so the 2 titles have duplicate scope; b) LL's assertion that the contents are restricted to actions of a state is false. The rest is irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The examples of islands for which we do not have categories seem pretty convincing. Can you give some examples where we do have disestablishment categories for geographical areas which disregard state borders? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, The GB category does not "disregard state borders". It uses the borders of an erstwhile state, just as Ireland does; and in both cases the area remains a political, social, and economic unit (neither case is an exclusive unit for all purposes, but still a unit). So it's still a navigationally useful grouping. And what on earth is this fixation on the distinction all about? Categories exist to facilitate navigation, and the distinction here is between a geographically-defined area and and politically-defined area of identical scope. When it comes to navigating between articles, the distinction is of even less use to readers than some medieval scholastic debate about angels on heads of pins. GB is a rare case of a natural geographical area which has been successively 1) home to multiple separate states; 2) contiguous with one state; 3) part of a larger state. Given these odd circumstances, Category:Disestablishments in Great Britain works, both navigationally and logically, just as Category:Disestablishments in Ireland works with its similarly tangled history. Why this obsession with treating this case in accordance with some abstract criterion based on how we categorise places with different histories? How does such arcane theological consistency help our readers? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a really big deal but I can't imagine any reader who hasn't followed this discussion expecting this category to exist, they will all be looking for a UK category. And adding "Kingdom of" for 18th-century categories is just a convenient disambiguator, the same way as in Kingdom of Great Britain. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why add a disambiguator when there is no ambiguity? This is a just a case of a long and a short name for the same thing. In such cases we create a redirect from the long title. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BHG states, "these categories have a geographical scope". This is demonstrably false: there is a geographical scope for one and a political scope for the other. They're close, but not close enough. Separation is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Isle of Man was part of the Kingdom of GB but was not part of the island of GB. We have Category:Disestablishments in the Isle of Man which is properly a child of Disestablishments in the KoGB during the 18th century, but not of Disestablishments in GB. So the state and the island are not synonymous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(as creator of the category) While I don't quite agree with the outcome of earlier discussions I understand that this merge is unavoidable for consistency reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we do not generally keep "years in island" categories, but rather "years in <foo state/kingdom>.GreyShark (dibra) 08:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- They are the same place. We do not need parallel trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and precedent, and to avoid duplication. As with other similar categories, the scope here is geographical rather than political. We tend to use political boundaries to demarcate the geography, but there is a lot of fuzziness around it. Some of the entities used are former states (e.g. England); some are not-yet states, e.g. Category:Establishments in Ireland by century starts with the Category:2nd-century establishments in Ireland, even tho the island wasn't a de facto single political entity until at least the 16th century. We do this because, per WP:CAT, categs on en.wp are a navigational tool, not a Linnean system of perfect classification. These (dis)establishment categs could arguably be named after the island or the state, but the scope is identical in either case, so the "Great Britain"/"Kingdom of Great Britain" duplication is solely a duplication which does nothing to help navigation between articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge establishment/disestablishment categories are by political entity. Unless we are ready to create a specific category to cover the Isle of Wight and the Hebredies because of geographical facts with no political impact, this distinction is nonsense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 2 November 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:Steam Powered Giraffe
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: Not enough content for a category. Only contains an album category, in which one entry is currently a redirect and the other is at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so direct articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:51, 28 October 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.