Dropping established from religious buildings[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Religious buildings are not established. This proposal matches the name that received no objections in this discussion. I tried to nominate some at speedy but one editor is objecting there insisting that built or completed be included in the name. However several other previous discussions have found those options to be problematic. This is mainly based on the fact that church buildings tend to undergo major reconstructions and that leads to the argument that they are never completed or they are built several times making both of those labels misleading. Some of these categories may not be well populated since I stopped doing so knowing that a rename was going to be required.Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate rename proposal we should rename these to Category:Religious buildings completed in 1561. We already have buildings and structures completed in year X cats, so there is precedent. This would also avoid overcat since Category:1804 religious buildings in theory could easily cover any building used at least exclusively for religious purposes in that year, which would lead to some religious buildings being eligible for 400+ categories, and many, many qualifying for over 100 categories. Down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative name - given that large religious buildings have historically taken 20+ years to build, it makes sense to specify it is the year that the building was finished. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many of the buildings are rebuilt several times so established (in the sense of first established) seems better than completed. Cjc13 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then it's a new building. Does the category refer to this exact building eg Coventry Cathedral, completed 1962, or to what the building represents, eg Coventry Cathedral, a concept which has existed since 1095. I think clarity about this will help to determine the wording of the category. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where there is a distinct new building such as Coventry Cathedral, there can be an article for each new building, but for example there is St Lawrence's Church, Denton which was originally established in 1531 but then expanded and remodelled in 1872 along with other restorations. It was established in 1531 but when was it completed? Many such surviving churches have been altered, sometimes radically, since they were first established. Cjc13 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, buildings are not established, parishes and congregations and denominations are established. That point has been made in many past discussions. So keeping established for these categories is simply wrong. As to St Lawrence. A chapel of ease was completed in 1531 and that building was expanded 1872. So the question becomes one of what to do with the 1872 changes. The most logical solution would be to create a redirect for, maybe, Chapelry of DentonorSt Lawrence's Church (chapel of ease) (unless someone knows the actual name used back then) with the 1531 category and have the present article in the 1872 category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are churches, or similar, so I think they can be described as established. Using redirects and different names seems artificial and unnnecessary. Cjc13 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, churches is ambiguous in that in can refer to a building or a congregation or a religion and probably a few other things. Buildings are not generally refereed to as established. So using established to refer to buildings is probably not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Year + Religious buildings cat structure was established about a month ago in a CfD discussion that had three participants. So far here we have 3 people who want to make it a year completed cat, and one who thinks we should stick with the year established cat. I am moving to change my vote to "Oppose the rename, but with no clear decision on what the name should be". I am beggening to see that it might be best to say religous buildings are established. They are being established in a use as a religious building. This might be a somewhat irregular way to phrase such a thing, but it is what we actually want to categorize, and so I am thinking maybe we should stay with how we have been phrasing things. This would still be distinct from a parish being established, since the parish is not the same thing as the building, and they often pre-date the establishment of their current building. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not just change "established" to "completed", as has been suggested? The proposal leaves one unclear whether the date referred to is the date the building was designed, when construction commenced, or when construction was completed. They are clearly for the latter, so why not be explicit? Good Ol’factory(talk)23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I was using completed in the target category, I did have edits reverted with the edit comment that the building was not completed in that year since it was (add your comments here). Basically saying that completed is not correct. As I said above, most, if not all of these, could be addressed by adding the category on a redirect for the earlier versions. The question that makes that difficult is that the old name for the building may not be know. But that could be addressed by creating a redirect using the form Buildingname (yyyy) or some such. If consensus here is to use completed I'm not unhappy as long as this discussion clearly addresses the issue of rebuilding, and how to deal with multiple completion dates. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how about turning it on it's head - Category:religious buildings commenced in XXXX. That makes it clear that the category refers to the day the first building work was done, not the foundation of the see, parish or whatever, and deals with the issue of modification dates also. Also, in earlier centuries when large religious buildings took ages to build, the building usually came into use as soon as the builders had put up two walls and a roof. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources become difficult. In many cases, it is hard to find both of those dates. Completion dates (or dates put to use) tend to appear more in sources then start of construction dates. If you look at modern building, editors seem to be happy with categorizing by completion date since that is when the building is useable and that is notable. {{Infobox building}} allows for inclusion of the start of construction date and end of construction along with many other dates along the way. {{Infobox church}} also includes the groundbreaking date. In any case, this still leaves open issues of multiple groundbreakings when additions are made since they usually have a major ceremony to celebrate this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some buildings will have somehwere on them where the date the building was erected is given. Very few buildings have soemthing mentioning when work began on the building. Then you have some buildings, the Salt Lake Temple is the one I can think of off the top of my head, where work began at one point, but the foundation was sagging so they tore it out and begin again totally anew. Another point is we already have Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1830 and various other such cats. There is precedent for using this form, and I think it has stood the test of time fairly well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no reason why a building could not technically have more than one completion date and be so recognized. If you read the defintion for what constitites an educational institution being established you will see that it openly admits a form of reestablishment, and some educational institutions are categorized as having been establish in multiple distinct years. If a building really was seen as finished and put to use and then put through major changing expansions that lead to another finishing seven different times, than having it in all those seven categories would probably make sense. This will be a small case of truly significantly changed buildings and there will be a logical connection of the building to each of those years. Even in this case the building will often have been renamed after these major changes, or in some cases torn down and rebuilt, so we can either have seperate articles or redirects. For example St. Paul's Cathedral in London burned down and was rebuilt, so we could have St. Paul's as the main article, and then the older, less famous one as old St. Paul's, or St. Pauls Cathdral (XXXX) with the year included or something like that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate use of established to completed per the discussions above. I'll continue to add the remaining ones in this tree here so that they can be done in one group. Those at speedy that had the objection listed above can probably be done to match whatever consensus here is. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominated or use of "completed". The word "completed" was chosen in arecent case where buildings have subsequently changed use, as it is fair & helpful to categorise a building by the original use linked to the original date of completion. I'm not sure that it's needed at this higher level, but it does no harm and matches the parent for buildings & structures. IMHO "established" is clearly wrong; "opened" or "dedicated" (not everyone uses "consecrated") might be useful in some cases, but "completed" is probably the best option. - Fayenatic(talk)23:16, 14 July 2011 (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:Aircraft of the Australian Army in active service[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 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.
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.
Delete Hudson Bay natives are both Inuit and Amerind, as the southern portions of the bay have Amerinds populating its shores, while the northern portions have inuit; so it should not be categorized under Canadian Inuit. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neptunekh2, this category has ambigous inclusion critera. Could you care to define "Hudson bay native people"? Here's a question: Are people from Hudson bay an ethnic group? Do they define themselves that way? Hudson bay is a body of water; Do they live in the water? Or do you mean they come from the islands IN hudson bay?Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one person in the article is an Inuit who was born in a vilage situated on the coast of Hudson Bay. So currently it is only used for Inuit people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes less sense to have the article in this category. We are proposing to delete it. The one article in this category obviously doesn't belong in this category.Curb Chain (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe I do not understand merging. As I understand it when we merge a category all we do is move those articles currently in the category to the new category. It has no direct effect on what happens when people try to add articles to the category in the future. It would be noted in the delete log though and maybe mislead someone in the future to place an article where it does not belong if it is done, but would not directly create the misplacement. My main argument would be with one article it makes no sense to merge at all and we might as well delete and let someone manually place the one article where it goes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand. When categories are merged, one category is merged into another. The category-to-be-merged-into-the-other will be deleted because this is just another form of rename, but the category-to-be-merged-into-the-other already has articles.Curb Chain (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2011 (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:Television shows set in Prince Edward Islands[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 at this time, tidy and revisit. I'll put the PEI and Yukon categories through a rename to remove the errors noted by Bielle . Timrollpickering (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Are there any other tv shows set in Prince Edward Islands?? User has created subcategories for Canadian tv shows set in each province. Overcategorization. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: First, the province is Prince Edward Island (sans the final "s"). Second, the territory is just Yukon, no "The" and no hyphen. Third, if we are looking for balance, Montréal is a city: the province would be Québec. The titles for the categories ought to be the same, either "Television shows set in" or "Television series set in". I have no view about the suitability of the categories, but, if they stay, they need some correcting. Bielle (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 66 articles in the whole category tree. I pruned out several that made no statement to series setting, but there are a few others that really don't either. Another one starts in Vancover but is primarily set in a fictional place, so maybe should be pruned. I see no compelling reason to subdivide Canada for this cat, and am not really convinced it is a very useful cat. A few of the "set in Canada" entries it remains unclear if this is ever stated in the show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you're not deleting Toronto or Vancouver, I fail to see why you would delete Montreal. There are a reasonable number of articles, and it has clear expandability, since Montreal is the heart of production for most Canadian TV series (albeit, most Canadian TV series are in French... (English being dominated by American imports) thus probably have fewer articles being written about them) 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had to go do other things half way thru (and then forgot to come back to it) - the intention was to nominate the lot as suggested by John Pack Lambert above.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, Television Shows set in California has way more articles than the whole Canadian tree. Anyway, there is not a strong consensus that we need all these fictional item set in said place categories. This is especially true with television shows where there seems to be a tendency to confuse where they are produced with where they are set. The setting is fictional, and is often "some city that we have not defined ever". The location of production is a matter of fact. That a show set on a First Peoples reserve was classed as set in Vancouver is just the most extreme example of people confusing where something is set and where it is produced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That shows set in California has more articles than the Canadian tree is not an argument for deletion. If people are confusing "produced in" with "set in," yes, that should be corrected. But again I don't see it as a reason to delete, in and of itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2011 (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:Women's association football in Australia[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 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:Wikipedians with Celtic,Slavic,Germanic,Hebrew ancestors[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete Quite clearly intended as a joke but should still be deleted since we don't want to maintain joke categories. Pichpich (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Populated by one user, and not likely to expand; narrow categorization. Also, as Pichpich said, it is probably a joke category, or somewhat pointy.Curb Chain (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In response to FaktneviM's request: there really is no way to move a category to user space. A category is a technical function that allows related pages to be grouped together. -- Black Falcon(talk)07:25, 12 July 2011 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the name of the main article (most common name used when referring to that band). Pichpich (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (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.
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: Notability is a criterion for the existence of these articles in the first place so saying the firearms are "famous" is tautology. There's no category for "Non-famous individual firearms". McLerristarr | Mclay110:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only the JFK rifle is an individual firearm. The other two would have to be deleted from the category, leaving a one-article category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Nominators rationale besides the general issues with this whole name scheme listed below this category has unique issues. It has no articles, only Category:Irish Jews. This category is adequately in other categories such as Category:Irish people by religion and Category:Jews by nationality. Placing it in this category is especially odd since the parent cat says people of Jewish descent is supposed to only be used for those people who do not self-identify as Jews, thus by the parent categories own criteria this category should be empty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why do we need a cat that is so limited? Anyway, if we are going to limit this category to citizens of the Republic of Ireland we should rename it so that is obvious. There is no reason at present why someone who died in 1920, amount other possiblitities, can not be in this category. However it still adds up to categorizing someone according to something that they did not publicly acknowledge. I would also point out that the reality is that many people are in both X of Jewish descent cats and Jewish actors or Jewish writers cats, which means that the cats are being sloppily applied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories like this, that are not based on this facet of someones life making them notable, are maintenance nightmares subject to misuse, miscategorizations and probably BLP issues in some cases. The common argument to retain is that these are good research tools does not meet any existing categorization guideline that I know about. And that argument is simply saying that researchers don't know how to search for the intersection of two characteristics. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, solely on the grounds as an empty category. I can see little point in retaining this category solely to hold the subcategory Category:Irish Jews, which should be removed and is listed under other parent categories. However, there should be no impediment to the recreation of this category should appropriate entries be found in the future. Davshul (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2011 (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.
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.
Nominators rationale besides the issues I mentioned in discussing the parent cat this cat has additional disadvantages. It currently only has one entry, which is hard to justfiy for a category. Beyond this, the one entry is an emigrant to Japan, and it seems a bit odd to be categorzing an emigrant by their ancestry. There were two other articles which I removed, one was someone for whom no claim of Jewish ancestry was made in the article and no claim that he had ever even been a permanent resident of Japan existed in the article and the other was in Category:French expatriates in Japan indicating that they had never in any sense actually been Japanese.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an empty category. Since there is no claim to support the sole individuals inclusion here, they should be removed from the category leaving it empty. That sole entry points out some of the issues with this type of category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the two suggestions that there is insufficiaent evidence that Barakan belongs in this cat I removed him from it. I left him in British emigrants to Japan on the assumption that someone born in Britian living in Japan with a Japanese wife can be described as having emigrated to Japan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, solely on the grounds as an empty category. There should be no impediment to the recreation of this category should appropriate entries be found in the future. Davshul (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2011 (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.
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 renamed because users apparently are going to keep creating these South Sudan categories whether or not a CFD is ongoing for any one in particular. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:15, 10 July 2011 (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.
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 renamed because users apparently are going to keep creating these South Sudan categories whether or not a CFD is ongoing for any one in particular.Good Ol’factory(talk)08:15, 10 July 2011 (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.
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 renamed because users apparently are going to keep creating these South Sudan categories whether or not a CFD is ongoing for any one in particular. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:15, 10 July 2011 (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.
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:Delete. Being a landowner perhaps used to be a notable fact about a person, but it has become so common in many countries that having a category based on being a landowner that is not limited in any other way is nigh unto ridiculous. (If this is intended to be grouping a particular type of landowner, perhaps a rename clarification is in order.) Good Ol’factory(talk)05:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Considering most people with articles on Wikipedia can probably afford land, most people will probably end up in these categories or any other nationality categories that would be created. Perhaps limit them to people from a time when owning land was a luxury. McLerristarr | Mclay105:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet how many articles on 15th century people who were not land owners do we have? Some I am sure, but probably not enough for it to be useful. this is especially true since the way wikipedia categories work if a person ever owned land they would qualify, and while at times the land-owners in some populations were low the percentage of people who gain notability who at some point in their life own land is probably very high. This is almost as bad an idea as literate people, even if we limit it to countris and time periods where literacy was below 25%.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bad faith nom. It is not supposed to be for anybody you can afford land. It is supposed to be for the landowners in British history in which "landowner" or "feudal lord" was their chief occupation or were widely known as landowners alongside their political activites. The wealthy landowners who held country estates. I personally am interested in this subject and I find it very useful to organize and for navigation between estate holders and their properties. What harm actually is there in this? A true landowner or feudal lord is radically different from a mere individual who may just happen to own a plot of land.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is supposed to be only for British landowners, then why have the general one and the one by country. Keep it British for now. HoverfishTalk
How that makes my nomination "bad faith" is not clear. A category name should unambiguously reflect what it's meant for. These ones obviously do not. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I spent a lot of time yesterday rooting them out and you nominated for deletion within 24 hours with no effort to discuss it with me first.♦ Dr. Blofeld07:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does that saying/guideline go? "Assume ..." something-or-other? "Bad faith" implies a certain type of motive, and you obviously don't know mine. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "true landowner"? The OED gives the simple definition for landowner: "An owner or proprietor of land." There is no other definition. If the categories' purpose is for something other than containing all landowners, then they need to be renamed. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of is Category:Notable landowners but I dislike categories starting with "Notable". McLerristarr | Mclay110:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable landowners is ridiculous. We do not make subjective claims in categories. Rather an alternative name would be Category:Country estate holders or something. But landowners really shouldn't be an issue, as Mais says below it is really silly that you'd think it would be for anybody who ever owned a piece of land. We are talking about country estate owners which especially in the Middle Ages were very powerful and important figures and were known soley for being landowners. Above all this is intended to refer to the feudal lords who ran country estates and leased them.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no doubt whatsoever that for certain notable people, particularly during the Middle Ages, being a landowner was pretty much their only source of notability. These cats should not be used for anybody who happens to own land: that is plain silly, and was clearly not the intention of the creator. They should be used where being a landowner is a person's main (or one of their main) reason for fulfilling our notability criteria. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There should be a header at the category defining what qualifies for this category and what does not. And it should be checked for improper use. I would be for renaming if I could think of a title that spells out the limit clearly, but I can't come up with any consize term that wouldn't be an invention. HoverfishTalk14:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as modified. I've been working on some English manor houses and country houses, and have come across bios that would fit into these cats. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:English country farmers, Catgegory:English manor owners or something like that? I am still unconvinced this is a worthwhile category. Maybe what is really being aimed at is Category:Landlords. However I am not sure that that will be agreed to be a universally recognized term, I am not sure if there is a clear definition of it, and I am not sure we want to group people who own large tenament tracts with people who rent out their basement or sublet a room in a house they own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes English manor owners is a good suggestion. Also Category:Feudal lords would work. But I think the best step initially is by century and to state at the top of the category than it is not intended for anybody who ever owned a plot of land. I'm sure Rosie would agree with me that Catgegory:English manor owners in particular would be an excellent and highly useful category.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unconvinced Category:American planters is truly useful. However at least there it has a name that is clearly limited. If these categories had names that were as clearly limited in scope I would not vote to delete them. However their names do not serve to limit and so I think we should delete them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to make the purpose of the category clear. The current name deserves deletion as OCAT. If there is a notable use of some of the subcategories then they need renaming so that the name makes clear the inclusion criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (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.
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.
Nominators rational. This category specifically states it is for people who do not identify as being Jewish. If they do not identify as such why are we categorizing them based on it? Jewishness is an ethnicity tied to a religion and a particular culture. It is clear someone can be still Jewish without openly professing Judaism, but it is unclear there is any reason to have a category to group people who do not self-identify as Jews. I am less sure about what to do with the sub cats. In the case of Category:American people of Jewish descent many of the subcats include many Jews by specific Jewish nationality of ancestry, so they might work out someone. In the case of Category:Christians of Jewish descent the cat says it is supposed to be a holder cat that only has cats, but it still has about 25 articles in it at present. I actually at one time added several individuals into this category but was convinced that it was unwise, and had thought it had been deleted. In many ways this cat seems to be an attempt to do an end run around the question "who is a Jew". However as it exists right now it just invites categorization by things that not only were not central to a persons identity but by things that the person never openly acknowledged in a meaningful way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify the title A title such as "Christians of Jewish descent" is not ambiguous, but this one is. That someone is of Jewish descent but does not identify as being Jewish is in many cases quite relevant to a person's notability. This is obviously a category to be used with extreme caution. For living people, I would not use it unless the individual has himself acknowledged in an unquestionably RS both the descent and the current status. (There is otherwise no way to be certain what someone may consider themselves). For those no longer living, the general agreement of multiple RSs without substantial contradiction is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a tree of people by the ethnicities they descend from - Category:People by ethnic or national descent, and this is but one. There are certainly people of Jewish descent who are not Jewish (adherents of Judaism), just as Irish Americans are not Irish (citizens of Rep. of Ireland), etc. As for apparent title ambiguity, this category page does include a statement of it of what is meant by the title. Mayumashu (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mayumashu, we have never agreed that Jews must be adherents of Judaism. Many of the people in the Jewish categories are secular if not athiest Jews. Also we allow Jewish related cats on the assumtion Jewishness is an ethnicity that we do not allow for other religions. If we were to accept that to be Jewish one must be an adherent of Judaism we would have to prune all the Jewish categories. That has never been the rule and to suggest that is how things works is just to confuse and muddy the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to fall into the class of people who had a blood relative who was an active Jewish adherent, but they are not. So this becomes a category for those who are not something which we tend to avoid. Any of these decedent categories also has another problem, how many generations back do they go? I'll contend that there is no objective inclusion criteria that is also not arbitrary that can be developed. Finally, is this fact really defining for these individuals? I'll accept that for some it is, and for those they can be listified as an alternative to keeping this and forever having to clean out individuals where this fact is not defining for them. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (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.
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.
Nominators rationale. Jewishness is an ethnicity closely tied to the proactive identification with the religion. It is not a national ethnicity and so you either are Jewish or are not Jewish, it is not like German or Russian where there is a national entity and when your ancestors leave it there is a loss of the identity. This change will significantly change the scope of the category, but it is inline with how we categorize. We categorize Jews in a way that is more inclusive than any other religion, but we still should not allow the type of categorization based on no outward identification that happens within descent categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by going through and removing all those people who were born in the 48 states (primarily New York, but not exclusively) with one Jewish parent and the other paren Puerto Rican (which means conflating the two in one cat makes no sense) and those whose articles made no statement as to them having had Jewish ancestry I think this cat has been reduced to only actual Jews. This probably makes the rename much more advisable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Jewishness is several things, an ethnicity, a religion, aa common descent--whether according to the rules of one or another particular branch of Judaism or the ordinary rules of inheritance, either civic or biological), a culture, an identification by oneself or by others. There is no agreement among Jews about who is covered by the designation, so we must go with the sources--and for living people--their own statements. I thik the plain term is clearer. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two different things (though Jews are of course also of Jewish descent, but not everyone of Jewish descent is Jewish). I'm of Scottish descent but am not Scottish, etc., etc. However, if none of the bios are of Puerto Ricans (and not Puerto Rican Americans) where their Jewish ancestry is not stated or support with sources, then purge and delete alternativelyMayumashu (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mayumashu you are not Scottish because to be Scottish you have to be born in Scottish. On the other hand I am not Jewish not because of where I was born, since there were Jews born at the same hospital I was on the day I was born, but because my grandmother converted to Chrisitanity (specifically Mormonism) back in 1949.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2011 (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.
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.
Delete. Not only is this meaningless to their careers, but as with most x descent cats people are put in them with no evidence in the article of this descent. The schema is especially bad with specific European ancestries because so many Americans have multiple ones. It generally functions as a way to overcategorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2011 (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.
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: This category essentially duplicates the bus stations category - of the four articles it contains, two are in Category:Bus stations in England and one (Birmingham Coach Station) is in a new regional subcategory Category:Bus stations in the West Midlands (recategorising that article is how I found this category). The one article that isn't already dual categorised, High Wycombe Coachway would fit there (e.g. it already contains Reading Coachway) While some coach stations are served only by coaches, most are also local bus stations - and even those that aren't are in the bus station category only, e.g. Victoria Coach Station. I don't know what else other than coach stations could be in this category either. While the target category (and sub cats) could be renamed Category:Bus and coach stations in England I'm not sure that's necessary and so I'm not proposing it, although I wouldn't object to it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the bus/coach difference great enough to be used in actual speech. My sense is that at least in the United States there is something that wants to be called the motor coach industry, but everybody in actual speech refers to the things as buses unless they are trying to sound erudite. If this was in the US I would say the commonname rules would mandate a merger. Unless the motor coach industry is much better at getting people to use its own terminology in Britain than in the US I would say go for the merger. I am not familiar enough with british English to be able to say one way or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, buses and coaches are normally distinguished in speech in the UK as the vehicles and services tend to be different, however the distinction is not always made. Whether something is a "bus station" or "coach station" if served by both types of vehicle is arbitrary and most such facilities get called by both names in speech. Only in rare cases is the distinction important (e.g. Victoria bus station and Victoria Coach Station are different buildings about 5 minutes walk away from each other), but there is no practical difference between a bus station and a coach station. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Buses and coaches are distinctly different. Bus and coach stations are not. There are very few towns with distinct bus and coach stations, and the vast majority of bus stations are also served by coaches and vice versa. Separate categories are one step too far. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have put some effort into creating a clearer distinction between a bus (used for shorter urban journeys) and a coach (used for longer interurban journeys including Megabus and Greyhound etc). I agree that many coach stations are also bus stations and that the distinction may not be useful, however... there is a new class of Coachway interchange emerging outside towns on the main road routes that might be worth capturing in a separate category. These sometimes evolve without any central planning (such was Reading Coachway and Leknor Interchange). There are probably 20 at present in the UK and I believe that Megabus are using informal coachway interchanges in the USA as well. As such I am keen that we have some way of cataloguing at least these ones. Possibly we create 'Coachway interchanges in the United Kingdom' for them. I will be doing more work on these going forward. PeterEastern (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two sorts of coachways, those like Milton Keynes which are simply coach (and bus) stations on the edge of a settlement/near a major transport route, and those like Reading which are simply road-side stops in places like supermarket car parks. The first type certainly belong in the normal bus station categories (like parkway railway stations belong in normal railway station categories); the second type probably also belong if they are notable enough to have an article (what constitutes a bus station rather than a group of bus stops is not well defined). This means that any coachway categorisation should be parallel to bus station categorisation - if desirable at all (and I am not convinced it is). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While there may be some coach stations that are not technically bus stations there are not enough articles on such to justify having to seperate categories, especially since the majority are overlaps. If later on we get way too many bus stations or a substantial number of articles on coach stations that are clearly not bus stations we can consider spliting the category then, but for now this seems to just be a way to put a few things in two categories instead of just one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (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:Players in Chinese Basketball Association[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 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.
