Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 11

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 11

Category:Priests convicted of child sexual abuse

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per rest of tree, this is a member of Catholic parent cats and should specify that it is only for Catholic priests. Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, priests is too imprecise Unibond (talk) 00:46, 12 January 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:Catholicism and Far-left politics

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; I note that Category:Eastern Orthodoxy and far-left politics is also a recent creation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inherent WP:NPOV problems. This is being added to articles in which "far-left" is not even mentioned. Elizium23 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 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:People from Oakham, Massachusetts

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) 02:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Berlin, Massachusetts to Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts
Category:People from East Brookfield, Massachusetts to Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts
Category:People from West Brookfield, Massachusetts to Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts
Category:People from Paxton, Massachusetts to Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts
Category:People from Hubbardston, Massachusetts to Category:People from Worcester County, Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county communities with just 2 or 3 entries. ...William 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: West Brookfield now has 5 entries.--TM 13:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though two were from Brookfield, before West Brookfield existed and one only worked at West Brookfield for a couple of years. Sionk (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by adding them back again you're making a mockery of the categorisation process. I stand by my argument that Category:People from West Brookfield, Massachusetts should be upmerged too. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them. Being buried somewhere doesn't make them from that place. Sionk is dead on point about the other two....William 03:37, 26 January 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:Philosophy reference resources

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make clear that this is a category for templates, not for articles and to have a name that is consistent with the other subcats of Category:External link templates. Note: the category text should also be changed. DexDor (talk) 15:34, 11 January 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:Medieval mythology

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Medieval mythology had two things in it, Draconcopedes and Christian Mythology. Draconcopedes is more accurately described as a legend since it was included in some medieval zoologies, so I added it to Category:Medieval legends. While Christian Mythology has a small amount of info about the Middle ages, the majority is not. I removed both things from the category because they didn't really belong there, and the category itself seemed redundant with Category:Medieval legends existing. So with nothing in it Currently, I think it is a good candidate for deletion. If it is felt this a good category, I can move Draconcopedes back there. Perhaps some more articles should be listed there in that case. Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mythology is better divided by theme and culture. This attempt to categorise by era would logically group together many aspects of mythology which only coincide in time, not in culture or creation. On that basis it is a trivial category. SFB 13:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for explaining what was there, but you should not have emptied it before nominating it for CFD. There is a technical definition of a myth which is differnet from a legend, but we do not need to keep what is now an empty category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron. Christian Mythology didn't belong in the category. While there could be arguments for Draconcopedes or other articles from that time period to be in the category, I tend to agree with Sillyfolkboy's position that this topic in particular is better divided into categories in other ways. When the category was empty I could have simply left it alone and had a empty category taking up space, or waited four days and nominated it for speedy deletions. Perhaps I should have gone one of those ways. I felt it would be better to nominate it here, so that in the spirit of Wikipedia, a consensus could be reached on it. Though it is true you shouldn't clear out a category you nominate for deletion WP:CFD - I removed the things that didn't belong there, THEN nominated it for deletion because it was empty. So it's a rather grey area. In good faith, I listed everything that was in the category that I removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightgodsy (talkcontribs)

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:British architecture

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: reverse merge to Category:British architecture. There was consensus that we shouldn't have both categories. There was no consensus on what direction to merge. I selected to merge to Category:British architecture for two reasons: (1) "FOOian architecture" is the current standard for Category:Architecture by country. (2) Category:British architecture is older than Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom (2004 vs. 2008). This result is not to be regarded as a consensus for Category:British architecture over Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom, however, or for the "FOOian architecture" form over an "Architecture of FOO" form. Users should be free to propose a change to the format of this or the other by country categories without prejudice from this result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Clearly these two categories have the same scope and their contents could be interchangeable. My preference would be a merger to the "Architecture of... " category, to match the Architecture of the United Kingdom article. Architecture has a fixed physical presence at a location, rather than a nationality, per se, so in my view the "Architecture of... " category name makes more sense.
However, I'm open to the idea of a merger in the opposite direction. This CfD decision may have broader implications - the vast majority of categories in Category:Architecture by country are not "Architecture of FOOland" categories (though many more of the matching Wikipedia articles are). Because the top category is not Category:Architecture by nationality I would argue that the other "FOOlandian architecture" categories be renamed to "Architecture of FOOland", but that evidently would be a big job!! Sionk (talk) 11:59, 11 January 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:Populated places on Iceland's Route 1

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NON-DEFINING. This article groups many very old towns based on whether they are along a road that was built in 1974. According the introduction of the main article, "Route 1 ... runs around the island and connects most of the inhabited parts of the country." If there was ever a description of a non-defining category, that is it.RevelationDirect (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Iceland. – RevelationDirect (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is not of much use.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 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.