< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Category:People involved in outsourcing

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) 03:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. There were 2 others but they were about companies. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2019 (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:CPO (group) albums

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This musical group released one album, 29 years ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2019 (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:Bankroll Mafia albums

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This musical group released one album three years ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2019 (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.

Places of worship

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/rename using option B, i.e. to "religious buildings and structures". Places of worship that do not fit here may belong elsewhere within Category:Religious places, e.g. in sub-cats of Category:Sacred sites (currently nominated for renaming to Category:Holy places), if it is WP:defining in each case. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category list for Places of worship[edit]
Propose merging/renaming:
OPTION A: use "religious buildings"
For the full list of 1014 categories to be renamed in OPTION A, see WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#OPTION_A
OPTION B: use "religious buildings and structures"
Note that this option involves renaming all the existing "religious buildings" categories to "religious buildings and structures"
etc
etc
For the full list of 2057 categories to be renamed in OPTION B, see WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#OPTION_B
Rationale for Places of worship[edit]
Nominator's rationale: To create one consistently-named and all-inclusive set of broad categories for the bricks-and-mortar aspects of religion, whether by time or by geography.
Effect
This huge nomination rename all "places of worship" categories to "religious buildings" (option A) or to "religious buildings and structures" (option B). This proposal will not rename any categories of types of religious buildings. So e.g. Category:Synagogues in London will not be renamed, but its parent category will be renamed from Category:Places of worship in London to Category:Religious buildings in London (option A) or Category:Religious buildings and structures in London (option B).
Why?
The distinction between "places of worship" and "religious buildings" is small, and for except the parent Category:Places of worship, it is a hindrance to navigation.
At higher levels, this category is no more than a fork of the existing Category:Religious buildings. At lower levels, it has an unhelpfully slightly-narrower scope than religious buildings. The consequence is that is that it excludes some items which would more helpfully be included alongside places of worship.
So far as I can see, the difference is that:
  • Category:Religious buildings may be read as excluding places of worship which are not actually buildings, such as mass rocks. However, mass rocks are overwhelmingly human constructions, so it's reasonable to categorise them under buildings. Similarly, shrines and other outdoor places of worship overwhammingly involve human constructions. same with pilgrimage sites. So in practice I don't see any exclusions, even with option A.
  • Category:Religious buildings and structures seems to me to unambiguously include all places of worship
  • Category:Places of worship seems to excludes a range of religious buildings such as convents and monasteries, clergy houses (rectories, vicarages, manses etc), Episcopal Palaces, religious cemeteries, etc.
The exclusion of those other types of buildings creates unhelpful glitches in the category structure, e.g. Category:Places of worship in Sheffield excludes Monastery of The Holy Spirit, Sheffield. It would be much more helpful to group it with the other religious buildings in that cit, by renaming the cat to Category:Places of worship in Sheffield, which I propose renaming to Category:Religious buildings in Sheffield.
Commmons
Wikimedia Commons avoids the "places of worship" categorisation, and uses "Religious buildings" throughout. e.g.
Two options
It might be better for en.Wikipedia to use the slightly more verbose format of Category:Buildings and structures, which in this case would be Category:Religous buildings and structures. That would remove any dispute about whether the categories can include structures such as standalone shrines, crosses and statues, which might not fit everyone's definition of a "building". So I have included that as OPTION B. Note that OPTION B involves renaming the subcats of Category:Religious buildings, such as Category:Religious buildings by year and its many subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion for places of worship[edit]
Support/Oppose/Comment here
  • @Marcocapelle, I came to this by looking at the commons category, and asking the opposite question: why does en.wp exclude religious buildings just because their purpose was not worship?
For most cities and other areas we have a category of religious buildings, currently called "places of worship", but no category for "other religious buildings". I suppose we could have a separate category for "non-worship religious buildings", but why not just have one category which includes episcopal palaces, convents, monasteries etc?
Look at that example above of Sheffield. Why leave Monastery of The Holy Spirit, Sheffield out in the cold in the secular Category:Buildings and structures in Sheffield? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS residences of clergy are already under Category:Religious buildings.
The tree is Category:Religious buildings → Category:Christian buildings → Category:Clergy houses
But because we don't carry the broad "religious buildings" tree down to the local level, they are excluded from the local category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Monasteries are fine to include of course, they (also) have a worshiping purpose. The question is: do we divide buildings based on purpose (worship vs residential) or based on ownership (a church vs private). Usually the former is well-documented, ownership less so (except in case of clergy houses and episcopal palaces). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, I don't agree that there is any neat use/ownership distinction. Ever single clergy house which I have ever entered (Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Jewish) has been used not just as a dwelling but also as a location for meetings, prayer groups, pastoral support, private counselling and a range of other religious purposes.
The same goes for all the religious denominations (Christian and otherwise) which I am familiar with.
So I am unclear why you think it is helpful to try to draw a hard line around the set of buildings who primary purpose you seem be to defining as public worship. Even the current division doesn't meet the public test, because it includes e.g. private chapels which have much less of a public function than a clergy house. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose votes below are related to this early discussion. However it is important to note that the aim of the nomination is to create consistency in this category tree, which should be much appreciated. The question rather is what the best way to realise this consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what your point is, @RadioKAOS. That what we shouldn't have categories are at all? That we shouldn't try to resolve anomalies? Or merely to note that in this huge set, there some edge cases?
We have a long-standing principle to resolve for such cases: WP:DEFINING. I'm sure you can give your own eloquent answer to the question of whether hosting a single religious service which was not widely reported is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of Mount Roberts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I made about some people needing to emerge for a breath of fresh air was expressed generally so that no one can have the excuse of trying to dismiss it by throwing out WP:NPA. Still, it's all too obvious. We have countless biographical articles where the subject's notability is defined by their activities in one place, with the article not categorizing them according to that place and instead categorizing them solely according to some other place because they happen to have been born there. If the community is not willing to tackle that problem, which has existed unchecked for untold years, then any mention of "defining characteristics" is hollow and meaningless. As for your characterization of a "single religious service", here's what the article actually said:

Nearly a hundred persons...representing a dozen Juneau churches...climbed above the tree line on Mt. Roberts Sunday afternoon, July 13, and shared together in the third annual (emphasis mine) "Sermon on the Mount" service sponsored by the Juneau Ministerial Fellowship.

Looks to me like this was an ongoing thing and not a "single service". Judging from the article, the Episcopal Diocese took notice of this year's service because the rector of Holy Trinity Church led the service. Anyway, you really want my point? I don't have time to scrutinize thousands of categories. From what little I've seen, though, this is yet another example of categorization geeks creating untold numbers of categories for the sake of satisfying the desires of categorization geeks, not for enabling effective navigation for readers who are stuck wading through excessive levels of underpopulated categories. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS, I responded based on your mention of a single service, so please don't try to cast me as the originator of that point or to discredit me for taking your comment in good faith and accepting it at face value. If you want to make an assessment of the WP:Definingness of that service in relation to the mountain, please share it ... but otherwise it's all a pointless diversion.
As to your broader point, you seem to have misread this nomination: it will not create a single new category. Its purpose is to slightly broaden the scope of existing categories, which will help to slightly reduce the problem you describe of underpopulated categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're extrapolating. Is your rented school likely to merit a Wikipedia article? Probably not. Cnbrb (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of that comment misunderstands what is proposed. There is already a prolific number categories for churches, mosques, synagogues etc. This proposal won't merge any of those categories.
However, this renaming does resolve the problem that we have at small city/county/region level, where the usual category tree is
"Buildings and structures in Footown" --> "Places of worship in Footown" --> "Churches in Footown".
In many cases the "Places of worship in Footown" category is omitted because it would contain only one or two articles plus the churches category, placing the mosque, synagogue, bishop's palace and notable vicarage in the secular "Category:Buildings and structures in Footown".
This slight expansion of the scope will allow a few more religious buildings to be grouped together, and thereby increase our ability to have a distinction between religious and secular buildings. That increase the usability of the category tree, rather than a category tree. I really don't see how usability is improved by retaining a structure which makes it less likely that the places of worship will be grouped together rather than being pushed back to the secular category.
We simply don't have vast swathes of articles on other religious buildings to swamp the places of worship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand how they are the same thing. A place of worship is more correct. "Religious building" makes me wonder if the building itself is religious, like the building is big or small. It is a nomination that requires a lot more discussion.--Level C (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is extrapolation. Have Scientific buildings been to college to study science? Do Military buildings and structures wear uniform? I think it's obvious what is meant.Cnbrb (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The two terms are not the same. Per Peterkingiron, Nyttend, and Level C. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Inter&anthro, the whole point of the nomination is that the two terms are not the same. The point is that "Religious buildings" is slightly broader, which allows for a more inclusive grouping at the local category level where religious buildings such as shrines, monasteries, clergy houses etc are currently left with the secular parent category "buildings and structures in Foo". Why do you think readers are helped by leaving them in a local secular category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that thoughtful comment, @Carlossuarez46. However, I think your concerns are misplaced, because in many of the examples you list, religion is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the building.
For example, the WP:DEFINING characteristic of a hospital is that it used for medical purposes, not that it is owned by a religious body. Similarly for universities: even when owned by religious body, v few of the buildings have a WP:DEFINING religious use (except in the case of a seminary or theological college). Similarly for govt buildings of states with official churches: the UK has a state religion, but I really don;t think that anyone is going to try to categorise 10 Downing Street as a religious building, or Nelson's Column, the M1 motorway or their local tax office.
I don't see a problem with former uses, if that use was WP:DEFINING. If a building was a church for decades but is now a museum, then both uses are WP:DEFINING, and the building will should already be categorised as a church building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl; I have a few UK examples: is Windsor Castle a religious building? Is Frogmore? Hampton Court Palace, as Cardinal Wolsey place of power? the Tower of London? the articles in Category:Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries - where the vast majority of grave markers are "religious" and the interments were often "religious" affairs and commemorations seem to always include God. I fear: how we divide these may very well not be articulable in an objective way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46, I'll take those one at a time:
  1. Windsor Castle is easy: it has always been a fortified palace for the monarch, so it's very clear that it is a secular building. Obviously, its private chapel St George's Chapel is a church, and is rightly categorised as such.
  2. Hampton Court Palace, being first owned by Thomas Wolsey might initially look more complex, but it's actually simple. The Place was built for Wolsey in his role as the Senior Minister, not as a priest. So we don't even need to consider that it was Wolsey's for only 7 out of its 700 years; it was not a religious building even in those 7 years.
  3. Frogmore is a private burial ground. It is used for the family of a church leader, but not owned by a church.
  4. Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries are like most state-owned cemeteries, used for a mix of religious and secular purposes
So the only question marks are over cemeteries. Category:Cemeteries is a subcat of Category:Religious places, and also of Category:Burial monuments and structures which doesn't seem to be in any religious category tree.
I am not aware of any solely secular cemeteries, where no religious rite is permitted (tho may be France has some). So it seems to me to be appropriate to class them as religious, since they will be used for religious purposes a significant proportion of the time -- many people who only go to church for weddings and funerals have a religious burial. It would still probably be helpful to have an RFC on that issue regardless of what happens to this CFD, because cemeteries could be placed in Category:REligion in FooTown. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike fuzzy categories, which is probably more pronounced in the cemeteries. Having religious events (be they revivals, prayers, or funerals), in my mind doesn't transform the nature of the edifice - the US Congress starts its sessions with a prayer, the Capitol is secular; when the pope visits, he uses various stadiums as venues for mass, they remain secular. Standing crosses (like the Eleanor crosses) and Mount Davidson (California)#The cross are religious structures, and many cemeteries notably contain row after row of them (even, supposedly "secular" cemeteries). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2019 (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:Phases of matter

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: State of matter. Note also Portal:States of matter (not Portal:Phases of matter or Portal:Material phases, etc.) and List of states of matter. Speedy nomination was opposed, suggesting a full CfD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anomalous+0 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the portal is no guide to anything. It one of several thousand creations by a portalspamming editor who has complained that portal creation is so time-consuming that it takes between one and two minutes per portal (Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes). This semi-automated process involved so little scrutiny that it even involved creating at least one portal with precisely zero articles in its scope other than the head article: see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Fort Hare#Portal:University_of_Fort_Hare. The nominator seems to have missed that this flood of portalspam is currently the subject of several raging debates elsewhere.
I am of course open to changing my mind if someone who actually has expertise in physics can assure us that the two topics are identical, and are better referred to as "States of matter". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 21 March 2019 (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:American championships

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:International sports championships in the Americas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:American championships to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: This category was tagged by an anon editor for speedy renaming to Category:Pan American Championships, but not listed with a rationale. That proposal would be consistent with the article List of Pan American Championships. However, some of the contents do not cover all of the Americas, but North + Caribbean, North + Caribbean + Central, or Central + South. The current name is consistent with others in Category:Continental championships, but I think the best name might be Category:Sports championships in the Americas, following another parent Category:Sports competitions in the Americas. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2019 March 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 21 March 2019 (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:Arabic language speaking people

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already Category:Arabic-speaking people category seems the same to me SharabSalam (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2019 (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 Order of Ismail

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Ismail
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
When foreign leaders or even diplomats visit Egypt, or vice versa, before 1953 one of these awards is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Kigeli V of Rwanda and Quintin Brand of South Africa are not defined by this award and such foreign recipients are most of the category. If you want to see the clutter these categories create at the article level, just look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. I listified the contents of the category here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (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:USA Shooting Hall of Fame inductees

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:USA Shooting Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
Of the six people in this category, three don't mention the award at all, two mention it in passing, and one in the lead so it doesn't seem defining. There is no main article on this award so I created a redirect, pointed it to USA Shooting organization article, and added a section listifing this category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2019 (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.
More