The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Procedural close as category page was not tagged. – FayenaticLondon 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It was agreed when Greater Anglia + Thameslink and Great Northern changed hands that future station category renamings would be to a category for the franchise, not for the TOC. (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14). At the ScotRail franchise change, this was not respected and First ScotRail stations were moved to an Abellio ScotRail category, despite this not even being the TOC name. JaJaWa |talk 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category name should reflect article name, its not a huge job to change and won't need revisiting for at least 7 years. D47817 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Railway stations served by ..." categories. These are a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (e.g. York railway station) is currently in 7 such categories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a travel guide) so should be categorizing on permanent characteristics (that it's a railway station and that it's in a certain town) not on characteristics that can change many times over the lifetime of a station. This information should be in the article text (e.g. "From <year> to <year> the station was served by ...". Wikidata may also be a place for information about the mapping of TOCs to stations. See also my comments on the previous CFD linked above. DexDor(talk) 05:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if all of York's 7 categories were moved to the respective franchise names, York would still be in each of the renamed categories. A station may be served by one or more TOCs, hence the origin of the category name. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAUnion station is one served by more than one train company, although often it's where separately owned tracks cross. Nonetheless, Category:Union stations or something similar seems like a better fit. We don't categorize freeways but what trucking companies use them. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom, oppose delete as it's a defining characteristic for most stations. Though I agree that it's undesirable to have York railway station in 7 different categories. Perhaps Category:Union stations is a solution, otherwise York should simply be categorized higher up in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to categorize stations by TOCs we should categorize by all TOCs, not just the current ones. That would mean putting, for example, Exeter St Davids railway station in categories for B&ER, SDR, E&CR, LSWR, GWR.... Even a small station (example) has been operated by several companies over its history and may have been served by trains from other companies. Categorizing stations by which lines they are on (e.g. "Stations on the West of England Main Line") wouldn't be as bad, but that information is much better presented as a diagram. DexDor(talk) 21:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that this is really needed. Different example: we don't put all cities in categories of all polities they ever belonged to either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cities aren't normally in several polities at the same time and don't change polities every few years. And, there aren't many other ways in which a town/city could be categorized. P.S. There are some categories like Category:Westmorland. DexDor(talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to ScotRail as a franchise not a TOC anyway. JaJaWa |talk 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree but would carve out an exception. Train stations in the US are almost always categorized by the original train company that built it, even if that company is long gone since the architecture is often distinct by company/staff architect. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:20, 22 April 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.
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 as suggested below. – FayenaticLondon 16:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one template is applicable for this category, and that one template can easily be categorized into its parent categories. Should be deleted as per WP:SMALLCAT. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:00, 6 April 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.
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 as below. – FayenaticLondon 16:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one template is applicable for this category, and that one template can easily be categorized in its parent categories. Should be deleted as per WP:SMALLCAT, –Dream out loud (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Though it does operate as a WP:SMALLCAT, it at least has a legitimate purpose, as does the AirTrain JFK templates category, which was already being used for this current purpose. The best alternate suggestion would be to combine the two categories. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:41, 6 April 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.
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. MER-C 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:This category has work in progress (a manual split) from a previous CfD that was a close finish to delete. When I was looking at it at second glance I thought it's actually not meaningful to categorize fixed holidays at all. Holidays should be assumed fixed by default, and only if they're not fixed they should be categorized into Category:Moveable holidays. Also, it's not meaningful to distinguish by type of calendar: all holidays are already in the tree of either Category:Religious holidaysorCategory:Secular holidays and the child categories in these both trees are each nearly fully dependent on one specific type of calendar. For example Hindu holy days are obviously scheduled based on the Hindu calendar.
Note on the side, this proposal will save us sorting out the manual split in progress that (after almost a year) is still outstanding, so apparently the split isn't on anyone's priority list anyway.Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RevelationDirect; fixed in whose calendar? The 4th of July doesn't always happen on the same date in the Hebrew or Muslim calendar, so it's not fixed, right? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 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:Church belonging to the Anglican Parish of Malvern Link and Cowleigh[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. MER-C 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over the lifetime of a church (hundreds of years) I'm not convinced that which parish it belongs to is a permanent characteristic. We have categories like Category:Church of England churches in Worcestershire (which currently has 27 members so does not need to be subdivided). If kept these categories will need to be renamed to "Churches..." and a suitable parent category found. DexDor(talk) 05:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this category, I am regretfully inclined to agree. My rationale was that an Anglican ecclesiastical parish is not at all the same thing as a civil parish, something that most church infoboxes do not reflect - just as, say, the diocese of Worcester is not at all the same thing as the county of Worcestershire. Anglican Church hierarchy in the UK is divided into two Provinces, (Canterbury and York) and then into dioceses, which are in turn divided into archdeaconries. These are divided into deaneries and finally into ecclesiastical parishes. All of this is reflected in the church infobox - but, as I have said, this is usually populated with links to the towns or counties with similar names to the ecclesiastical counterparts - a category error. My idea - which now seems absurdly ambitious - was to create a series of categories, Province -> Diocese -> Archdeaconry -> Deanery-> Parish, which would put each Anglican church into its proper context, giving it meaningful metadata. It would mean that a reader could navigate down from the diocese level, say, and would also mean that changes at the parish level would automatically and instantly be reflected at the diocese level, thanks to MediaWiki's category behaviour. However, I now realise that this plan is far too weighty a task to attempt without some effort from a large number of people - and my attempts to discuss this on the Diocese of Worcester page resulted in silence, which suggests my idea is either a stupid one, or there are not enough people who agree that the task is worth doing. I also apologise for my misnaming of the categories - I should have course have used the plural. May I make one suggestion - perhaps if we can create a category 'Anglican Churches belonging to the Diocese of Worcester', as distinct from and in addition to 'Anglican Churches in Worcestershire' (Anglican seems to be used instead of Church of England for the diocese names) Then, in the fullness of time, we can further subdivide the Diocese category if that is felt to be desirable. Sorry for the work I have put you to, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Malpensilo (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. Finding that other editors (e.g. a wikiproject) are uninterested in categorization is common - one reason for not creating category structures that may not be maintained. Categories should generally be used for permanent characteristics (rather than current status) so a "Churches in Diocese of Foobar" category would be for churches that have ever been in that diocese (and possibly have a "Churches formerly in Diocese of Foobar" subcategory). However, a list is often a better way to handle this information - e.g. a list on the "Diocese of Foobar" article can have notes like "<church> came under this diocese in the merger with Diocese of Barfoo in <year>[ref]". DexDor(talk) 06:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both parish categories: they have no scope for expansion, and the other content belongs in the main article. Th deanery category should also be deleted, as dioceses do not have enough notable churches to need splitting. However, it may be worth saving its table as a list article, as part of a list of Anglican churches in Worcester diocese by rural deanery, but I am not wholly convinced by the idea. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 7 April 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:WikiProject American Civil War templates[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. – FayenaticLondon 16:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The userboxes in this category are general user-interest templates, not user templates used to convey membership or participation in the American Civil War task force of WikiProject Military history. The two user templates that actually are specific to the American Civil War task force are already categorized directly in Category:WikiProject Military history user templates; the task force does not have enough user templates to justify a dedicated subcategory. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to renaming per se; however, I think that should take place later, perhaps when Category:Military history user templates is more heavily populated and warrants subcategorization. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:23, 2 May 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.
