Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in North America
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:keep. I suggest opening another CfD if other alternatives (such as moving the subcats and/or parents) are to be considered. No consensus for Catholic/Roman Catholic alternative move.
(non-admin closure) --
Trialpears (
talk) 09:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: revert out-of-process move by
user:Tahc in 2015. This category does not contain articles on individual church buildings, but only sub-categories named
Roman Catholic churches in the Caribbean etc; all its sub-cats are "churches", "cathedrals" or "parishes and churches", and the siblings for all other continents within
Category:Roman Catholic churches by continent use "Roman Catholic churches in Foo". The rationale stated in Tahc's edit summary was "to match parent & child cats", but it did not match the child cats either then or now. (
[1]) After that move, many other categories were nominated at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings, with a consensus to use "churches", but this one was overlooked in that nomination. –
FayenaticLondon 20:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is no evident reason to have categories of RC church buildings referred to by the vague term "churches". tahcchat 21:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Tahc: As it does not contain articles on individual church buildings, but only sub-categories named
Roman Catholic churches in the Caribbean etc, please would you reconsider your opposition? The rationale stated in your edit summary was "to match parent & child cats", but it did not match the child cats either then or now. (
[2]) –
FayenaticLondon 20:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Especially in this context, the preference for "church building" as opposed to more vague "church" should be obvious.
PPEMES (
talk) 14:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
But every single subcat uses 'churches'.
Oculi (
talk) 07:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, but I deem that better change as well. We can afford that accuracy by natural disambiguation in the category tree.
PPEMES (
talk) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak support, just for procedural reasons, because it was an out-of-process move. However, substantively it is a poor idea to use "churches" for "church buildings" in cases of organizations that in itself are called "a church". This problem also occurs in the Anglican Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church in Sweden, etc. Using "church" for "church building" is too ambiguous in those instances.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The 'poor idea' was a well-attended cfd decision affecting dozens of categories. People ought to respect cfd decisions or get a new consensus.
Oculi (
talk) 07:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know, therefore no oppose, but I am not changing my mind either.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I will not support, weakly or otherwise, a proposal that is inferior to the status quo. The proposal offers less clarity than the status quo. I opposed in the citation offered and will continue to oppose it. That decision was just plain wrong and needs to be reversed.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support The building is the main meaning for the term "church".
Dimadick (
talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
As mentioned below, in Catholic context building is not the main meaning of the term Church.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't there seem to be a de facto convention about "Roman Catholic" inside
Category:Latin Church category tree? Or you think that this category should include church buildings both Latin and Eastern Catholic?
PPEMES (
talk) 08:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Discussion in previous CfDs has often found that church buildings is preferable to churches in denominational categories. This is especially true for branches of Christianity where the use of church in the meaning of church body is very prevalent (and therefore the confusion with church building more likely), such as Catholicism, Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy and in general those which follow the
episcopal polity.
Place Clichy (
talk) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (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:Famous Youtubers
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 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No clear definition of what makes a Youtuber "famous" other than POV. Otherwise, just over-categorisation of notable Youtubers already included in parent
category:YouTubers.
Escape Orbit(Talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Contents should already be in one or more other sub-cats of Youtubers by nationality, gender & genre, so no merge is needed. –
FayenaticLondon 21:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. Arbitrarily defined and adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia nor its category system.
Geolodus (
talk) 06:39, 12 August 2019 (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:Vajiralongkorn
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 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: One eponymous article. Uncategorised.
Rathfelder (
talk) 20:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have added this category to the parent
Category:Thai monarchs, so it is no longer uncategorised. Presently no opinion on whether to keep or delete.
Geolodus (
talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Clearly there could be more related articles, but no obvious need for the category at present.
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (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:Cryonics pioneers
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.
MER-C 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The field of cryonics is a pseudoscience, yet we have two very small categories, one for cryonicists and one for cryonics "pioneers", arbitrarily defined. There is significant overlap: three of the 13 articles in this category (25%) are in both. The more general category has only 8 entries. Guy (
Help!) 17:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
No objection (as category creator). I created this as a split from
Category:Cryonics, see
[3]. There is evidently no need for two categories for biographies. –
FayenaticLondon 18:54, 11 August 2019 (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:Kla Project 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:speedy delete (G5).
MER-C 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, this nomination contradicts the instruction in the header of
Category:Albums by artist. It may be more helpful to discuss this instruction as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (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:Domains (country subdivision)
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.
MER-C 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Since Japan is the only country to have had domains as a subdivision, it seems unnecessary to have this as a parent category here.
Geolodus (
talk) 10:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's what I meant.
Geolodus (
talk) 17:19, 11 August 2019 (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:Films directed by Christian Duguay (director)
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:do not rename.
MER-C 09:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Department of redundancy (department). "Films directed by" already disambiguates this category as pertaining to the film director rather than the actor, so it's not necessary to double-disambiguate.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
very weak keep. If the other Christian Duguay was in a completely different field, I'd agree - but actors do often turn their hand to directing, and it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to think that these films were directed by the actor.
Grutness...wha? 03:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - per simplicity - follow the article. Otherwise one has to keep an eye on all Christian Duguays. It's also
WP:C2D.
Oculi (
talk) 10:28, 11 August 2019 (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:Vivaldi (web browser)
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 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 06:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Seems big enough for a category of this type.
Geolodus (
talk) 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Three artiocles and two redirects. Guy (
Help!) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (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:Mage Knight
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.
MER-C 09:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose as I'm not convinced that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, ..." applies here. DexDor(talk) 14:00, 11 August 2019 (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:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners
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 09:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 08:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:21, 11 August 2019 (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:Robot video games
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: Per
WP:CONSISTENCY with other, similar subcategories. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose, "in video games" is not the standard format anyway and other categories with "in video games" should better be renamed in order to get "in" removed.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Video games about robots, assuming that Marcocapelle's statement is accurate. This is not a standard way of naming this type of category, and a Google search suggests that "robot video game" is not a term that is in use. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)reply
That is a fair possibility. Consistent with films about, books about.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisting comment: rename to what?
MER-C 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd be fine with "Video games about robots" now that I am aware of the typical naming scheme.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 12:00, 31 August 2019 (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:Skye
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 as nominated.
MER-C 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. This follows the very recent rename of the article from Skye to the far more harmonious
Isle of Skye.
Oculi (
talk) 13:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Support" but substituting "on" for "in" (and usually "of") but "Landforms of" seems best.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - the nom explicitly states that the in/on difficulty is excluded from this nom, so IMO the nom has been supported by everyone and the change 'Skye' to 'Isle of Skye' should be made. If we include 'in/on' then I agree with Peterkingiron that it should be 'on'.
Oculi (
talk) 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, simply following the article title.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (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:Alabama Slammers
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.
MER-C 09:16, 19 August 2019 (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:Interlanguage link template link number
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. No predjudice for recreation if a desire for the category is demonstrated in the future. I am aware of the non-admin closure guidelines, but have decided to IAR and close as delete even though it's not recommended. Please tell me if you believe I should stop.
(non-admin closure) --
Trialpears (
talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)reply
With more than 58,013 members, this category is currently unusable. It has the most ridiculous system I have seen thus far of listing pages with 1 link as starting with "A", then for links under "B", etc. This should really just be five categories actually sorted alphabetically instead of one that is pretty much just broken.
The old system might have made sense at one point, but it doesn't now which is the only thing that really matters for a category. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 06:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, that sounds like a good idea. It might take some time for the old category to clear out, though.
Jc86035 (
talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
While I am not against the proposal as such, I wonder how it can be useful to categorize this at all. In other words, could deletion perhaps also be an option?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete unless someone can point to a process that uses this category. Checking what-links-here on the category page doesn't show any such processes. DexDor(talk) 13:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support splitting, but I don't like the proposed names. It is about pages that include an interlanguage link template containing 1, 2, 3, etc. foreign language links, not about pages that include 1, 2, 3, etc. interlanguage link template links. (It does not count the links in total, but the links per template). The use for the higher categories is obvious: notable topics needing an article in English. If the category page is clear enough, there is no need for a formal process page. —Kusma (
t·
c) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I understand the usefulness of the template, but not of the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Marcocapelle, the category
Category:Pages with five or more interlanguage link template links (or whatever it will be called) will be on pages with a red link that corresponds to pages in five or more other languages. If many other language editions have an article on a topic, maybe so should we. Look at
[4], where for example
Bosmans tells you to consider writing about
Phil Bosmans, which you can translate from a lot of languages. But I can't really see any point in
Category:Pages with one interlanguage link template link (or whatever it will be called), which is no more interesting than the template's whatlinkshere. —Kusma (
t·
c) 20:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I had understood that. But I cannot envisage that any editor would take this category as a starting point for creating new articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Leaning delete. It's still unclear what's the use of this category. Please someone should give examples of how it's useful apart from categorizing for the sake of it.–
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Also leaning delete. I can see a use for maintenance-categories for interlanguage links to specific languages, but I don't see how subcategorizing them by number of links is useful and unless/until we have per-language subcategories the parent category is too big to be useful. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment.@
Kusma: I wasn't aware that was how the category is populated. If that's the case, this template's documentation certainly needs updating to make that a bit more clear.
I'd also support an alternative proposed name. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete because no practical use has been demonstrated. As for splitting: the template does that already, in a fashion. Inspecting the template code shows that it groups articles into the category via a sort key: if a single template invocation contains 1 foreign Wikilink, sort key=A, for 2 links it's B, ... to L for 12 links, but currently H (for 8) is the highest. However, the programming logic is flawed because it doesn't take into account that a local English link may already exist; see
Adelaide, Abbess of Vilich which has 8 interwiki links for
Beuel none of which is used because there's a local article. The template works as expected at
Gerlind Reinshagen which points to
Claus Peymann in 8 other Wikipedias. On the other hand, the
Category:Interlanguage link template existing link is useful. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 11:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Not sure pages with many interlanguage links probably present an issue, especially templates.
For the other items mentioned above we want to know how many times a page is redlinked, which the "Wanted pages" special page should help us with. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 11:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC).reply
@
Renata3: same as before: I can understand that a template is useful, but not a category. By the way your ping has not worked for me, I just passed here again by accident, maybe you can try again.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Seeing the lack of interest, I don't really mind the category ending up deleted, as long as we can agree that any interested WikiProject or group of editors could simply introduce new tracking categories. At the moment, no such groups seem to exist; anyway, I think the discussion of what could be done in the future should not happen at CFD, but at the template talk page (after all, it is about changing the template more than about anything else). —Kusma (
t·
c) 09:51, 31 August 2019 (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.