From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21

Category:People associated with Winchester Cathedral

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, we don't categorize by association. Possibly recategorize William Walker (diver) to Category:People from Winchester. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That is a good addition, I've adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but consider a better name. The central assertion of the nomination that we don't categorise by association is wrong, see for example Category:People by company. Tim! ( talk) 06:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
People by company is usually employees and executives (with occasional outliers). This category primarily serves to lump religious officials and dead people together ( with occasional outlyers). RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Associated with" could include the parishioners, groundskeepers, Frank Sinatra for singing Winchester Cathedral, and I think other singers have sung it (publicly and professionally), and on and on... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It is. I guess I'm just not clear on the benefit of grouping religious officials with corpses. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Because that's exactly what happens in reality. The priests and bishops do their work surrounded by corpses.
    Other workplaces may have potted plants or pictures on the walls; cathedrals have corpses under the floor, in the walls and in raised boxes. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OCASSOC is about vagueness. This category is a container for 3 precisely-defined groups. If it was just a standalone category to be applied directly directly to people, then its warnings would of course apply. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reply @ BrownHairedGirl: Wow, we hardly ever disagree on category issues! But we do here:
  • PROCEDURE: If someone submits a CFD nomination for a parent category without the sub-categories, I'll oppose it on prodecural grounds to avoid orphaning categories ( example). But I don't see anything procedurally deficient with nominating 1 of 8 sister categories. We're discussing this category because it was nominated.
  • BACKGROUND: I've been spending a lot of time sifting through the wreckage at Category:People by scandal (examples: 1, 2, 3). Seeing just how bad these "associated with" categories can get has definitely stiffened my resolve that these should be avoided when practical.
  • EXCEPTIONS: If navigation is improved though, I'll toss everything else out the window. I don't see an advantage for someone looking through Category:Winchester Cathedral since this upmerge of 3 sub-categories wouldn't flood the parent category. (St. Paul's has more.) I also think that if someone wants to look at people across cathedrals, they'll use more specific categories like Category:Burials by cathedral because I don't think the same readers are likely to care about Nigel (a bishop of Ely) and John Fletcher (a playwright buried at Southwark).
Hopefully that (long-winded) explanation makes my perspective clearer even if we still disagree. Your compromise to containerize is a step in the right direction but I've spent a lot of time purging loose articles from container cats and I'm not sure why this category is worth saving. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for that thoughtful reply, RevelationDirect. I'll reply to your points individually@
  • PROCEDURE: This is the only member of Category:People associated with cathedrals to be nominated. If this is a stalking horse for the others, then they should all be nominated together ... but if is a special case out of that set, then then the specialness should be explained. I don't hold with picking one example out of a set and deleteing it at random; that just leads to inconsistent categorisation. So far, I see no case that this category is different from its siblings.
  • BACKGROUND. I admire your work on the scandal categories, which are magnets for POV-pushers. But association with a cathedral is not usually scandalous.
  • EXCEPTIONS Sure, there's no great harm to a reader of Category:Winchester Cathedral. But if this is deleted, the reader of Category:People associated with cathedrals loses Winchester. So the net effect of deletion is a loss. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I think that would be the best next step. We can at least come to consensus with BHG on the 1st point: the sister categories are identical and any change (deletion, containerization, etc.) should apply to all of them. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle+@ RevelationDirect: Yes, that would indeed resolve my first objection, tho I think I may still object on the other grounds. (e.g. this works for universities, so why not for here?)
However, note that if anyone wants to start a new nomination, then the proposed action should not be deletion -- it should be merger to the appropriate Cathedral category if it exists; otherwise rename/repurpose it as a catchall categ for the cathedral. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerge of this and similar "associated with" categories. We should not group together staff of a cathedral with people who were buried there (or, for that matter, baptised, married...) below the <cathedral> level. A "Staff of <cathedral>" category tree would probably be ok. IMO, people like Nelson, Jellicoe and Baldwin do not belong in a "People associated with religion" category (just because of where they were buried) and an upmerge would be a step towards fixing that. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I would support upmerge of this category, at least affecting its subcats and William Walker (diver). However, this is not a case where one solution fits all, because e.g. Ely Cathedral does not have a category like Category:Winchester Cathedral, it only has Category:People associated with Ely Cathedral. If a pattern of mergers is presented, I suggest renaming in such cases. (Note: Simeon (abbot) is closely associated with Ely Cathedral, if not Winchester.) – Fayenatic L ondon 20:51, 23 January 2016 (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:1969 Bombing of Marine Midland Building

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT.
This category has only 2 articles, and there is no sign of expansion since the category was created 2 years ago. There isn't even a standalone article on the bombing, just one para in Marine Midland Building.
Nobody was killed in the blast, so it isn't likely to be a priority target for expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:15, 21 January 2016 (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:Anew Revolution albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; contents were deleted at AFD and category is now empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The band Anew Revolution as well as all 4 of these albums have come up for AfD, no significance or notability - also none of these 4 pages cite any references or sources. Garchy ( talk) 20:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This needs to wait until the AfD plays out. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • User:Garchy, if it was you who emptied this category, could you please revert the former content? The AfD has been closed as keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • User:Marcocapelle, thanks for checking in - I haven't modified/edited anything with these pages since I nominated them - not sure who emptied the category! Garchy ( talk) 14:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      • User:Marcocapelle, are you sure they weren't cleared out automatically upon the album pages themselves having the afD's go through delete/redirect? Nearly all the albums there successfully went through afD, which is probably why the category is empty. On that note, where did the afD discussion happen, and where/how did it get closed as keep? Just wondering, since all the pages are gone now anyway, so I don't see the rationale. Garchy ( talk) 21:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I see, it's only the main article that survived the AfD, see here. Then it's obvious that the category is empty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:49, 16 February 2016 (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:Shipbuilding / shipbreaking localities of Scotland

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) 02:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: to remove the slash. However, I am not persuaded that this category fits into the wider category structures. Most of its parent categories are inappropriate, and I question the merit of categorising whole areas on the basis of one activity which took place there. Do we do that for other industries?
Maybe this category should be deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:02, 21 January 2016 (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:Defunct power stations

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 nominated, and redirect. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. See Category:Former power stations. Carbon Power Plant was the only page in the category. Reh man 07:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • They're not exactly synonymous: the narrow "defunct" means something is "out of operation", while the broader "former" includes things not existing anymore (in this case: demolished power stations) or converted into something else. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • But that would mean all former things are defunct, but defunct things might not be former. If a building is demolished it is no longer in operation, but the opposite is not true.
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:Provinces of Roman Gaul

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 2, as CFD template was on category talk page instead of category page – now moved and re-dated. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Roman Gaul was a territory, merely defined as an ethno-/cultural-historical area of Celtic settlement; possibly also by the fact it was –in a body– defeated and conquered by Julius Caesar. Making them a container (separate from the rest) is a concession to out-of-date Franco-centric historiography, which is particularly questionable in the face of the history of French foreign policy (with varying definitions of its fringes towards the east or north-east, or what was perceived as 'Gaul' or territorial claim of France). 109.45.2.22 ( talk) 07:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WikiProject History and WikiProject France have been notified about this nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well, if not kept, at least double merge to both parents, the other being Category:Roman Gaul. But as that category exists, with a well-established sub-category structure and a lead article Roman Gaul, I'd say keep. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • ALT 1 Keep and rename to Category:Provinces in Roman Gaul. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, since parent Category:Ancient Roman provinces contains multiple of these provinces categories within larger territories of the Roman Empire (e.g. in Hispania, North Africa) so it's not a form of ghettoization as nominator suggests. Neutral about the alternative name, no preference for "of" or "in". Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the explanation by Marcocapelle. Dimadick ( talk) 20:03, 4 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_21&oldid=1138409823"