Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20[edit]

Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members[edit]

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: no consensus to delete all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting all child categories of Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up on discussion here. A fair objection in this discussion was that all child categories should be part of the discussion, not just a random selection of four. So here is the nomination for all child categories. The rationale for deleting is that the nominated categories aren't a defining characteristic for the members in every category, per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD. Please note that this nomination definitely does not include a proposal to delete the parent category Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, tagging is still in process. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's done now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I think this is way over the top, and a radical departure from how WP:NONDEF has been used and interpreted in the past. St Anselm (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what about WP:OCAWARD? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - poorly researched. Just because a category is a child of Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members does not mean it is only within that category. Example: the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a well established Order which is awarded to many who are not "heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members", there are several ranks and even the senior ranks may be awarded more widely. The proposal affects all rank categories and several related articles. This is way too broad a brush - has it been researched? There may be others in the same situation. Folks at 137 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the case with Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (which was the initial nomination). St Anselm (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some examples of people for whom - in your opinion - WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD wouldn't apply? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the parent. As noted by Folks at 137, many of these categories cover decorations given for other purposes as well, and yet presumably they don't all. This makes the parent category useless for navigation: we can't tell what's what. I would support deleting any child categories that can be shown to be awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, because I agree with the nomination statement. To make this parent category useful, we'd have to remove everything that's not awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and the nomination statement would then be correct — but this kind of action would leave the parent category empty and thus cause its deletion, too. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These are almost without exception not defining for the recipients and also run afoul of the other overcategorization guidelines, such as WP:OCAWARD. This is the case whether or not the recipient is limited to heads of state and their family members. For these reasons I think that in general that these are an ill-conceived use of the category system. These are the kinds of things that are certainly notable, and should be included in articles about the awards, but they are not defining for recipients. (I think that if deletion is a possibility, it is also important that the categories be listed here as part of the nomination, perhaps in a collapsible table.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get access to AWB in order to create the list [1] Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: Sorry - didn't realize you didn't have AWB access when you posted asked how to get the list. Here's the list, per Good Ol’factory's request. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The categories may need work to make navigating them easier. Difficulty in navigation is not a reason for deleting them. I've just been looking at the entries in the higher categories to try to figure out who is in them and why they are. Then, when I look at who is in the lesser categories, I wonder why they are not in the higher categories. (I'm referring specifically to the Finnish Orders here). The point is that it's all useful, valuable information that editors have taken a long time to compile. And now some busy body wants to come along and sweep it all away. There's too much wanton vandalism on Wikipedia posing as tidying up and deleting not-noteworthy articles. This is yet just another example.124.185.54.154 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I can't understand how you think Category:Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John is not defining for Anthony Mellows. OTOH it is quite possible that there are so few people for whom that particular category is defining that the category is not viable. However, isn't that very difficult (too difficult) to decide at a discussion as broad as this? Thincat (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are lots in this category where it is mentioned in the lead. Now, I know these things are a load of old cobblers (look at Andrzej Ciechanowiecki so it's not just British cobblers) but people really are sometimes defined by such things. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually in the process of checking the use of categories relating to the various Orders of St John. Some biographies have been wrongly categorised, so it will be that the Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John is incomplete and could include more people for whom the award is "defining" (however defined). So please wait a bit before judgement. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire supposed to be part of the nomination, or has it been mistakenly tagged? St Anselm (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a batch nomination, but of course you're totally free to oppose one particular child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks as if Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire is defining for most people in that category. It is nearly always mentioned in the first sentence. It is wholly irrelevant that it is a child of Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. It is not up to people here to search to see whether any of the categories are defining for any of the people it includes but it is up to the nominator to show that none of the categories are defining for any of the people they include. I am not convinced that due diligence has been shown before making this nomination. This is an unreasonable batch nomination because the child categories do not form a batch from the point of view of whether they are defining for what they include. I have a lot of sympathy with Nyttend's suggestion to consider deleting the parent category. A very poorly considered nomination. Thincat (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Here is an entirely random sample from Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire:~~

Beilby Alston, Grand Cross mentioned in separate Honours paragraph at end of article.

Percy Bates, Grand Cross mentioned in combination with the fact for which he received the Grand Cross.

Hugh Clifford, Grand Cross mentioned in separate Honours paragraph at end of article.

Henry Dobbs, Grand Cross mentioned at end of body text.

Alfred Emmott, 1st Baron Emmott, Grand Cross not mentioned in the text.

Howard Frank, Grand Cross mentioned in body text just before his death.

James Gildea, Grand Cross mentioned in last line of body text.

Joshua Hassan, Grand Cross not mentioned in the text.

Giles Fox-Strangways, 6th Earl of Ilchester, Grand Cross not mentioned in the text.

Azam Jah, Grand Cross mentioned in separate Honours paragraph at end of article.

~~I mean, I would really not mind to make an exception for the Grand Cross, but it seems like there's no rationale to make an exception. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

The reason there is no rationale for an exception is that there is no rationale for inclusion. I see a significant number of these child categories are defining for a significant number of their contents. ~~Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland for Mário Soares,~~ Category:Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John for ~~John Arbuthnott, 16th Viscount of Arbuthnott~~Anthony Mellows, Category:Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire for Millicent Fawcett. Is it possible for the nominator to withdraw this proposal or is that precluded by the ill-considered delete above? Thincat (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the very first person you list, Beilby Alston, it is the very first thing mentioned after the name. ~~Please read the articles before passing unhelpful comments.~~ Thincat (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I overlooked the abbreviations. So I withdraw the nomination for this category Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Some discussants have suggested deleting the parent category. Although I had deliberately excluded the parent category from the nomination, I'm not opposed to deleting the parent category as well, I had merely excluded it from the nomination in order not to have two different discussions in one nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not for one moment should my !vote above be considered as supporting deletion of the parent. I simply think that it is not a foolish suggestion. Thincat (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Actually I would suggest, just for clarity, that people who desire so will nominate the deletion of the parent category in a separate CfD. After all, the parent category isn't tagged for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I suspect that some of the child categories may have been inappropriately included in the parent but that may depend on exactly how the parent is defined. Thincat (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire should definitely be kept as it is defining for all recipients, as indicated by the postnominals. But I have a feeling it is miscategorised The issue is with the honorary knights, and it is probably only Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire that belongs in Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. But I note that George J. Mitchell who has the honorary knighthood, still has the postnominal in the article lead. (He is not called "Sir", but is still entitled to "GBE" after his name). St Anselm (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and William Halsey, Jr. likewise. Prince Philip is GBE (and is not "honorary") but his article doesn't consider it defining for him (it isn't even mentioned) although it is at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. To do all this properly requires each article to be studied and non-defining categories removed. Then, if any category is empty or nearly empty it is a candidate for deletion. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps purged) -- The problem with award categories is that they create clutter. That does not mean that we should not have a category of articles. In some cases a category may be appropriate. The problem is that heads of state tend to get given awards by lots of other states for diplomatic reasons. It is thus undesirable to have awards categories on their articles. However if the award is being given by a state or its own citizens (or in a few cases such as Hon GBE and Hon KBE) distinguished non-citizens, it may be appropriate to have them in an award category. Somehow we need to have a rule that excludes honours given for diplomatic reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:OCAWARD says that the general rule is not to have award categories, I would suggest we make a list of exceptions together. I think this is a reasonable request since all nominated categories have been tagged, so everyone who is involved in a particular award has the opportunity to list his/her award as an exception. For a start, Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire should be on this list. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest, I don't think WP:OCAWARD is a helpful guideline. In the first place, it doesn't reflect reality - awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists. Secondly, it is a bit hard to work out what the guideline is saying - it seems the "exceptions" clause is referring to cases where the award is not a defining characteristic - that is, we use categories when either (a) the award is a defining characteristic, or (b) when it is not a defining characteristic, but for whatever reason an exception can be granted. Thirdly, it doesn't give any hint about what the exceptions might be or why they are granted - the examples given are all for non-existent categories. Fourthly, the number of award categories is already far less than the number of extant awards, so the categories are relatively few in number anyway. Fifthly, I think as a community we have for a long time been deeply divided on the issue - there are editors who believe all award categories should be scrapped, and those who believe (virtually) all should exist - and so it is better to leave the issue alone. (See also Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Awards (again).) St Anselm (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: In assessing WP:OCAWARD, it's not very important that "awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists". This is because any user can create a category, and it will continue to exist until there is consensus to delete it. A far more relevant assessment would be what is the usual outcome of CFDs in which award categories are nominated. And the answer to that is that they are usually deleted/listified—overwhelmingly so, in fact. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear, Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire is not an exception to the rule, because the receipt of the award is a defining characteristic for at least some of the recipients. St Anselm (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories in the same situation are Category:Companions of the Star of Melanesia (it is a defining characteristic of Brian Bell), Category:Chief Commanders of the Philippine Legion of Honor (it is a defining characteristic of Lorenzo Tañada), Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu (it is a defining characteristic of Rabbie Namaliu), Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Lakandula (it is a defining characteristic of Fe del Mundo), etc. St Anselm (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONDEF says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. In this case, with only one person in each of these categories for which the award might be defining, there is not the commonality or consistency that WP:NONDEF requires. Hence the rationale to delete is fully applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't know why Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany is included in this train wreck of a nomination. None of the nominator's or subsequent arguments apply. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine withdrawing this category from the nomination as a second exception. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these categories cause many articles to be in many categories for a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Presumably, this info is already in the text of the articles (with references) and if some editors wish to have the info in a more structured form then isn't that exactly what Wikidata is for ? DexDor (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure why some orders like Category:Recipients of the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise was included in the first place. The Category:Recipients of the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise itself should be kept, but should be disassociated, of course. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost all of these. I am struggling to imagine how being Category:Knights of Malta was not a defining characteristic of Philippe Villiers de L'Isle-Adam, or Jean Parisot de Valette. To delete the whole category because membership of the order was apparently also given to a number of members of royal families as a sort of courtesy is swatting a fly with a brick. I would suggest deleting anything that falls solely under the parent Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and keeping all the rest. Orders of knighthood may not seem significant today (although I would be loth to make assumptions about that), but lots of the people with entries have been dead for centuries, and lived in times when knighthood was a pretty big deal. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. This is a mish-mosh of titles and awards for heads of states amd family and even consorts? How about the the family pets too? (Looks over at Caligula.) Different countries have different political systems, different types of heads of state and the titles are just that, titles, with, in some cases, greatly varying meaning ad/or value. Such things should be subcategorised by the state that these are heads of. If you want a cross-country comparison of such titles, a List would be far more suitable for use. - jc37 01:37, 17 February 2015 (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:Theologians[edit]

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: definition accepted. There seems to be consensus that the proposed definition should be implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose defining Category:Theologians

Nominator's rationale: See proposed definition of theologians category on the category page. As Category:Theologians is part of the Category:Occupations tree it is obvious that academic theologians should be classified here. The grey area with classifying "Theologians" is with clergy who wrote pastoral-theological, social-theological, political-theological books/texts/pamphlets that are not of clear academic theological interest. Should they be classified as Theologians or not? With the proposed definition, writing clergy should be classified as Theologians only by exception, but not as a rule. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with people that are in the clergy tree anyway. I'm requesting consensus about this definition. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of many examples in the grey area is: Robert Austin (divine) of which it is not clear that the writings are of any academic theological interest. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I can see the rationale for excluding a pop preacher's cash grab, but it'd be necessary to include authors of works that go on to be studied, commented on, interpreted, and so forth. For example, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man is cited or discussed as (at least) an important theological work by John G. Bennett, Philip K. Dick, Paolo Soleri, Flannery O'Connor, Frank J. Tipler, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Henri de Lubac, Thomas Berry, Léopold Sédar Senghor, Pope Benedict XVI, and others.

Perhaps whether any of an author's theological works are notable on their own could be the demarkation point? I realize that, to keep it simple, it would unfortunately be necessary to include Rick Warren and The Purpose Driven Life, but just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to keep it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that Austin's book mentioned above gets a page or so discussion in this PhD thesis. That makes me think he's in the theologian category. "Ordinary" clergy aren't usually notable, anyway - if 17th century divines are notable, it's usually for their (theological) writing. St Anselm (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is really a very useful comment in order to further clarify the nomination. Because the nomination is not about the writings of clergy, it is about the theological significance of the writings. In this case the writing is merely used as a source for a thesis in (church) history, rather than for a thesis in theology. For a thesis in (church) history just any (clerical) writing from the respective period may be significant, which would not be the case for a thesis in theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. This is a bit off track, but the disambiguation in some of these titles is perhaps a bigger issue. Austin is called a "divine", and the article links to a definition: "clergy whose theological writings have been considered standards for faith, doctrine, worship and spirituality". Are "divines" are a subset of "theologians", then? And if Austin is not a theologian, then it's more important to change the article lead ("was a puritan theologian and divine...") then changing the category. And if he's not actually a divine, then the article title needs to be changed. St Anselm (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, though I haven't touched the divines because the definition ("... have been considered...") is not quite clear on whether there is perhaps a fixed list of divines. If anyone knows more about this, please speak up. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep category and refine according to the top-of-the-category description. Obviously this category needs to include academics like Charles Hodge, and it should also include clergy notable primarily because of their theologically polemical writing, such as Jack Deere (to give someone on the opposite end of the spectrum from Hodge). Deere's one of the tricky ones: he has comparatively little academic work (he taught for a few years, but his career's mostly been in the pulpit), but his work is definitely on the learned side and less on the popular side; he's far from the Joel Osteen types, whom the theologians study as (essentially) contemporary folk religion. We need this category to include the Deeres but to exclude the Osteens, to include less-credentialed people notable for scholarly-informed writings and to exclude people who only really write for the man on the street. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the concept of the "man on the street" changes. There are two aspects to this discussion, that of old theologians, and that of modern theologians. Even with Hodge, he wrote books for the man on the street, and they would be considered very heavy going today. Almost all 17th century religious writing is heavy-duty theology. Now, "heavy" is not quite the same thing as "academic", but there certainly are grey areas and fuzzy boundaries here. St Anselm (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the man on the street in Austin's day actually had some idea of theology, and even in Hodge's day; what remained of folk religion in 17th-century England was intertwined with "academic" theology (when Puritans such as Austin attacked a practice as "superstition", it was Catholic or something in the Anglican church that they perceived as a Catholic left-over; this wasn't enduring worship of Woden), and the man on Hodge's street was likewise living in a context in which "academic" theology, basic theological literacy, was still high. I say Deere's "less on the popular side" because he interacts with scholars of similar and opposing perspectives (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit isn't a how-to for getting the Second Blessing), not because he's hard to understand; I read some of his works in college freshman Bible class (he represented the opposite-from-Hodge perspective on the Pentecostalism debate), and although I had no academic background in theology, I still understood him quite easily. He writes for the man on Hodge's street, not for the typical man on his own street who knows nothing of theology, a huge difference from the Osteen types (e.g. The Prayer of Jabez), and we need to make a distinction between the Hodge-or-Deere types and the Osteen types. Nyttend (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposed definition: people should only be classed as theologians when they have made clear contributions to develop the field of theology. A broader definition would include all the clergy tree, thus reducing the value of this category. A similar useful division can be seen in Category:Educators (practitioners) and Category:Educationists (theory), although we don't have the benefit of alternate terms for the two in terms of theology. SFB 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would suggest that we should be limiting this to those producing academic or devotional works, not every clergyman who has had a theology degree as part of his training. However, is this the right place for us to be discussing this? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is with devotional works of non-academic theological interest. Most clerics in Wikipedia have written something if only to be notable for an article, but I would propose to be very reluctant to classify them in the theologians tree as an occupation, for the reason that SFB just described very well. (As for your second question, this is a category discussion, isn't it?) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2014 (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:20th & 21th Century Science Fiction Television Series[edit]

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 delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:20th & 21th Century Science Fiction Television Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't really see the value in this orphaned cat that was created today. Another editor decided to redirect it to Category:20th & 21st Century Science Fiction Television Series because of the "21th" error, but that category uses incorrect capitalisation and the editor that moved the cat didn't bother moving any of the files. Neither category was added to any other categories so this category is orphaned. In all, quite a mess. AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that this cat doesn't seem to have a place in the Category:Science fiction television series tree. There are no similarly categories for the 20th and 21st centuries and every science fiction TV series ever created would seem to qualify for inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I naively created this category not realising that there was already a science fiction television series category, thus the content from this category would most likely duplicate the aforementioned content of category because all television content is native to the 20th and 21st century. Therefore I will move all articles in the category to the proper science fiction television series category (Category:Science_fiction_television_series ) and it shall be deleted.--Techhead55 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles don't belong in Category:Science fiction television series. They belong in appropriate subcategories. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Further elaborate. Why is Category:Science fiction television series not an appropriate category?--Techhead55 (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I have explained this on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for this inconvenience and now understand--Techhead55 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove If it were split into both is may make more sense but currently there are only Sci-Fi TV shows from those centuries because TV was made in the 20th and we are currently in the 21st. The Category is just shouldn't exist.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (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:Pathé's Luke films[edit]

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:Lonesome Luke films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pathé's Luke films to Category:Pathé films

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT by performance, not-needed and poorly worded. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lonesome Luke films. This is a clear, distinctive series of films based upon the same central character. There is clear benefit to navigating these films together, though the current naming is not the best choice. SFB 16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I have changed the redirect Lonesome Luke from Harold Lloyd to a more specific target, and added this on the category page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs)

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:Victims of Blasphemy law in Pakistan[edit]

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:People convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan. Using "in" rather than "by" avoids the question of whether the conviction was by the federal government or by a province). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Victims of Blasphemy law in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NPOV. WP:BLP concerns with labeling people as "victims". Also, which "blasphemy law"? One in the present, multiple ones in the future, something in the past? Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This categories the people who have been murdered or prosecuted under Blasphemy law in Pakistan.The nominator can read the article and also the pages categorized.There is no WP:NPOV. WP:BLP issues . Shyamsunder (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People convicted of blasphemy by Pakistan since this fixes the NPOV issue with "victims" along with the strange capitalization and this matches the sister category, Category:People convicted of murder by Pakistan. I don't share the nominators concern that the underlying topic is too vague based on the lead article. The category should also be removed from the Category:Victims tree.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: were some of these accused and then murdered before they could be prosecuted? If so, RD's proposal only covers part of the scope of the category. – Fayenatic London 17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; its scope is reasonable and useful. "Victim" sounds like something extralegal, and if you're lynched before prosecution, your punishment didn't happen because of the law anyway. Not fond of "convicted of blasphemy by Pakistan" (it sounds like the whole nation is sitting in judgement on your case), so "convicted of blasphemy in Paskistan" would be better. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan. However much we may hate the law(s), there is a slippery slope to avoid here, leading to Category:Victims of capital punishment in the United States, etc. St Anselm (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support StAnselm's suggestion. The current scope incorporates very different things here and the distinction between those convicted and killed is a useful one. SFB 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support StAnselm. My concern is that those accused and even those acquitted are frequently subject ot murder - effectively a lynching. However, we do not normally allow "accused" categories, becasue they are potentially libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2014 (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 Talke[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Talke to Category:People from Newcastle-under-Lyme (district)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 01:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 20 December 2014 (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 Marlborough Township, Pennsylvania[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Marlborough Township, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 00:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 21:20, 31 December 2014 (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 Great Haywood[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Great Haywood to Category:People from Staffordshire

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 00:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "WP:SMALL" refers to "Small with no potential for growth", not "Small", categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of times we mean WP:NARROWCAT when we say WP:SMALLCAT; I do that a lot too. Almost all categories have some slight potential for growth, but this one seems unlikely to ever be viable. No objection to recreating later if needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does NARROWCAT ("intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list") apply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expand by adding Category:Middle-earth characters (explanation). Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- This refers to a village, a place too small to need a category, but I think the target should be Category:People from Stafford (district). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2014 (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:Narrow streets[edit]

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. From the discussion, it seems that creating a list may off more benefits. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Narrow streets

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While all three articles in this category are indisputably very narrow, there's no objective way to know which articles should be included. And what's considered a wide street in Warsaw may be considered narrow in Los Angeles. The articles are already well represented elsewhere in the Category:Roads tree so there is no need for a merge. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Measurement. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I cross-referenced these to each other in the See Also section, along with a couple that are not in the category.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe there's some official register which lists such streets. Brandmeister^talk 15:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Rationale: Presumably to qualify for this category, the street would have to be notable for being narrow. That is, the fact of its narrowness would in and of itself meet Wikipedia's requirement of notability. The category could have a definition similar to what is done for the category of tall ships or could depend as it does now on what is generally considered narrow as does the category of inlets. The advantage of having this reside in a category is that it is more maintainable; an article only has to be identified by itself, not be linked from multiple other articles. I personally find the practice of cross-mentions within articles, e.g. Article on narrow street A mentions narrow street B and narrow street C; article on narrow street C mentions B but not A; and so on, to be distracting. See also deals with the distraction issue, but still has the issue of maintainabilty, in that each See also has to be individually maintained across multiple pages. Thisisnotatest (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the rapid expansion of the category since it was nominated, I would favor listifying rather than using the See Also section.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you be so kind as to point me to a Wikipedia guideline which recommends when to listify and when to categorize? Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates might help, though I rather suspect it won't! Thincat (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thincat, thank you, that was very helpful. That article also led me to the one on overcategorization which leads me to believe that I did jump to categorization. As for the article you referred me to, the advantage of making it a list would be the ability to list the alleys in sequence from narrowest to widest, provided that widths were available in the respective articles. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        We're on the same page then. I think including narrowness of streets in a list article would be interesting to readers and accomplish what you're looking for. Check out List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh to see how awesome a list can be. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful category, and all the articles there fit the category perfectly. This should only be included in an article whose narrowness has been commented on in reliable sources, and usually that will mean the street is notable for being so narrow - hence the categorisation is appropriate. St Anselm (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question LaSalle Street is narrow for a downtown Chicago street and Schuylkill Expressway is narrow for an Interstate, per the sourced articles, but I wouldn't consider them narrow per se. Should they be added?

RevelationDirect (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RevelationDirect's question. Narrowness indeed gets coverage in some instances, but often it's because the street isn't as wide as others around it. Unless someone's putting forth a study of specifically narrow streets (instead of narrower-than-nearby-streets streets), it's all relative, and that's not helpful for categorisation here. Tall ships — there's a solid concept of tall ship, with rigid definitions in some quarters, and apparently a popular concept in general, By the 21st century, "Tall ship" is often used generically for large, classic, sailing vessels. Is there a comparable definition of "narrow street"? Note the absence of a Narrow street article. In short, deletion is appropriate because, although streets sometimes get coverage for being narrow, this is still quite subjective, so it's not particularly useful for navigation. [Note that I editconflicted with RD's modified question; he mentioned Elfreth's Alley in the question to which I was responding.] Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the items listed are in fact alleys and not streets (although the article on streets considers alleys to be a subset of streets. The respective articles referred to them as streets. Would you accept redirecting the category Category:Narrow streets to Category:Alleys? Again, they would still have to be notable to be in that category. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thisisnotatest: Take a look at my thoughts on Alleys here. (I'm moving that conversation off this discussion because I think a rename/expand/purge/reparent discussion falls outside a traditional nomination discussion.)RevelationDirect (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a question? I would say they shouldn't be added - LaSalle Street is described in the article as relatively narrow. There is no Narrow street article, but there is an Alley article. St Anselm (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete per a question — by "per" I mean "because of what was said there". His question about the narrower-than-other streets is a convincing reason for deletion, as I see it. If you want to make an argument for Category:Alleys, I'm open to the idea, but alleys are quite different from some narrow streets; it definitely wouldn't be appropriate for the narrow LaSalle Street, and the articles on Strada sforii and Parliament Street, Exeter don't use "alley" except in the See alsos. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I was going to say was about Elfreth's Alley is that it's actually relatively wide compared to many streets in the Old City section of Philadelphia. Now, if it was in the The Great Northeast section of the same city, it would be relatively narrow. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I was there for the first time in October, I was surprised by its width; I was expecting something about six feet wide, but someone (how, I'm not sure) had parked a car in the middle. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article on streets, an expressway would not generally be referred to as a street. As for LaSalle Street, the question is whether it be notable for that aspect. That said, as noted below, alley may be a more appropriate term for this category. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Alleys (changed from "keep" above). This sounds like a useful compromise which avoids all possible subjectivity. (NB: This may involve removing some pages from the category.) St Anselm (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my tag on your talk page to see if we can reach a consensus about creating an alternative category. Thanks!RevelationDirect (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2014 (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.

Delete all These categories have lead to insanly high amounts of category clutter. With several articles in well over 50 categories. This is just too many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]