Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 2



Category:People from Jupiter Island, Florida

 * 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. According to the categorization guideline for people: "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual;" however, "people are sometimes categorized by notable residence ... regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality." In other words, someone should not be classified as being 'from' a place solely on the basis of being born there, nor on the basis of residence that is not significant (e.g., a temporary military deployment).


 * Whether residence in Jupiter Island, Florida, is defining for the various individuals who live(d) there is a matter of editorial judgment to be exercised on a case-by-case basis. If it is not defining for any of them, they should be removed from the category (not upmerged) and it would become empty (and, therefore, eligible for speedy deletion); if, on the other hand, it is defining for at least some of them, then the category could (depending on its population) be nominated for upmerging once again. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:People from Jupiter Island, Florida to Category:People from Martin County, Florida
 * Nominator's rationale: Town is less than 700 people. Not much room for growth. WP:SMALLCAT ...William 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the town is only population 700, it appears to be a bit of a magnet for celebrities. In addition to the category's current contents, Celine Dion, Alan Jackson, Richard Lerner and Kid Rock have all resided or currently reside there - the category can be populated further. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. "People from Foo" categories should only be for people born or brought up somewhere, not for people who just live there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...whaaaa? Someone who lives somewhere is not "from" that place unless they were born or raised there? I'm not sure that that is the way to go with these types of categories. If someone lives as a permanent resident in some place during their adulthood, I would say they are well and truly "from" that place. If we used your standard, we could not say that Barack Obama is "from Chicago", which I think would obviously be a mistake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would say that if we open these categories to everyone who has ever lived there then the categories may just as well be deleted as being utterly pointless. Incidentally, "born or raised" has always been the accepted standard for the British "People from Foo" categories, although there have naturally been dissenting voices (usually from people from those towns who want to include every celebrity who has ever spent more than a week in their pet town just to show how important it is). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm...Necro, we do not categorise by place of birth. We categorise by place someone is well known (i.e., Notable) for being from. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is, to my knowledge, no particular guideline in this regard either way, but that's the way it's been done in the long-standing British categorisation scheme. So saying we do not do it seems a little odd. Presumably you actually mean you don't do it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how limiting it to "born or raised" keeps the category relevant. The category is relevant if it categorizes people who are notable for being from there, regardless of what that exactly means. Bushranger is correct that consensus in the past from discussions of categories has been to categorize people who are notable for being "from" somewhere—which includes those who have lived there but were not born or raised there. He's also correct that the general consensus from discussions of categories has been that place of birth alone is not defining and should not be categorized unless there are other markers of the person being "from" that place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Necro, I did categorise people consistently by place of birth in every article I edited. Until I became aware of the fact that consensus at CfD is against such categorisation. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People associated with Jupiter Island, Florida per disagreement above. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply as this part of a larger category scheme ""People by Place" Brad7777 (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly opppose any rename - the category tree is "People from Foo". Any potential rename would (a) have to be "started at the top" and (b) wouldn't have a snowball's chance of passing. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There are more than enough individuals in the category already and more who could be included, and its high-profile resident base is only likely to lead to growth in the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Having a vacation home in a town is exceedingly non-defining. I cannot find a single member of the category whom I would characterize as being "from" there. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's been standard practise with the majority of contributors from some time now to list people who reside in a place as being from that place. Interesting to hear that there may not be WP guidelines that says this Mayumashu (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am neutral on this category. I would say that the basic rule of being from somewhere is complexed.  Mia Love would clearly go in Category:People from Saratoga Springs, Utah if we had such a category because we have established by placement precedent that all mayors of a place are by default from there.  Yet Mia Love did not move to Saratoga Springs, Utah until she was 24 or so.  On the other hand, everyone who has ever lived in Los Angeles, New York City or Detroit probably does not count as being from those cities.  Most alumni of Brigham Young University should not go in Category:People from Provo, Utah, even though virtually all BYU students live in Provo (among single students only those who live with their parents or grandparents are allowed to live outside city boundaries).  There is no easy way to determine where someone is from, but someone can gain the status of being from somewhere after their 21st birthday.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Provo Utah is nothing. How about all the people who could qualify for People from Great Lakes, Illinois. That would include yours truly. Great Lakes Illinois is home to Naval Station Great Lakes where Navy boot camp has taken place for over 100 years. I didn't do boot camp there but I did go to Naval Hospital Corps School there. I bet a half million men and women at least have passed through Great Lakes. Now take a deep breath and ponder that...William 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about 'People from Washington, D.C.'? - The Bushranger One ping only 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, comes to think of it since the main LDS Missionary Training Center is in Provo Utah, if we counted living in a place for 2 months we would have all sorts of additional people. I think though it is clear that places people live because of boot camp or even college attendance do not count.  Now if someone has a BA, MA and PhD all from the same institution, that might be a different story, but at least with BYU such people are fairly rare (although I did know one person who had recieved all their schooling K-12, plus BA, MA and PhD from BYU or BYU-owned institutions all in Provo, but that is a different story).  Then there are the college towns like East Lansing, Michigan where MSU has more students than East Lansing has residents (this is a result of some MSU students living outside the city boundaries).
 * Comment I am thinking of proposing some upmerging in Category:People from Wayne County, Michigan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My time at Great Lakes totals almost a year spread over 1979-80 and 84-85. My residency claim is a little stronger than that of a recruit at boot camp. Except I am probably not notable enough for a WP article even though I was the first blogger to be credentialed by the LPGA Tour who wasn't working for a major media organization at the time. My 'Take a deep breath and' was a little joke based on my being a HM-8452 Advanced X-Ray Technician in the Navy.(Did my training at Great Lakes for it ) All those chest X-rays I had to do and those were part of my instructions to the patients.
 * Seriously you're right about this not qualifying a person as being a people from. Cheers....William 22:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. The fact that many famous people have vaction homes on this island is not going to expand the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Transportation in Parry Sound, Ontario

 * 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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 26. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting transportation in parry sound, ontario


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There were previously seven articles in this category, however six of them were mis-categorised (in Parry Sound District vis-a-vis Parry Sound itself). Once those were removed there was only one article left, which is already in the appropriate PSD category as well, so there remains no need for this category. The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OC and nominator. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  00:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, transportation categories are not limited solely to the precise geographic location of the topic — rather, topics can also be categorized by function as well. For example, even though its physical location is in Seguin instead of Parry Sound proper, Parry Sound Area Municipal Airport's primary transportation purpose is to serve the town — and therefore it's a perfectly legitimate entry in the town-specific category on the basis of its function, regardless of whether it's actually inside the town boundaries or not. Pearson International Airport isn't physically in Toronto, either (it's actually in Mississauga), but it's still categorized as on the basis of serving the city. Put everything back where it was and keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble is we then have duplication with Category:Transportation in Parry Sound District, Ontario... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we have duplication? How does this constitute an exception to perfectly normal category diffusion rules, by which the town-specific category would replace the district-level one rather than both needing to sit on the same articles simultaneously? Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the things in the district category are not in the town? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which brings us right back to the point I made in my first comment, I guess. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Electoral districts in Hong Kong

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Electoral districts in Hong Kong to Category:Constituencies of Hong Kong
 * Nominator's rationale: These "electoral districts" are officially called "constituencies". The category name is misleading. Quest for Truth (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I am category's creator - sorry if I made an error. Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 Harry Potter

 * 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 without "Wikipedia". WP:CAT refers us to WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject; for an example of task forces, it gives Category:Military history articles by task force, e.g. Category:German military history task force articles which has been there since 2006. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Harry Potter articles to Category:Harry Potter task force articles
 * Category:WikiProject Harry Potter to Category:Harry Potter task force
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have recently converted WP:Harry Potter into a task force. Therefore, renaming is needed. Unfortunately, proposal was supposed to be speedy and to be like category:Roahl Dahl task force. George Ho (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia Harry Potter task force and Category:Wikipedia Harry Potter task force articles as these are project, and not content categories. (See also the CfD discussions for Stargate task force and Seinfeld task force.) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose use Category:Wikipedia Harry Potter task force (etc) instead. This is project related categorization. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia Harry Potter task force and Category:Wikipedia Harry Potter task force articles. As project categories the "Wikipedia" tag is necessary. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator, without the 'Wikipedia' prefix. Per Category names, there is no need to prefix the title of every project category with 'Wikipedia'. For example, we have Category:United States articles by quality and no need of Category:Wikipedia United States articles by quality. Virtually all Foo task force articles-type categories currently lack the 'Wikipedia' prefix (see the contents of e.g., Category:Novels articles by task force, Category:WikiProject Television articles by task forces) and this type of change should not be implemented piecemeal. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the same time though we shouldn't demolish the house while it's being built. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, I think. If you mean that we shouldn't stop a positive change because it has just started and is incomplete, then I see your point but disagree that it is a positive change. I think, also, that it ought not to be implemented on a category-by-category basis. Rather than aiming to achieve a local consensus during each nomination, I would rather that we have a centralized discussion or nomination about all affected categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator, without the 'Wikipedia' prefix. What Black Falcon said. - jc37 02:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People born in Springfield, Massachusetts

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. There is no consensus for separately categorising places of either birth or upbringing from notable places of residence later in life. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People born in Springfield, Massachusetts to Category:People from Springfield, Massachusetts
 * Propose merging Category:People born in West Springfield, Massachusetts to Category:People from West Springfield, Massachusetts
 * Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, there are no other categories for people born in x place - the standard seems to be "People from x place" to cover people who were born or lived in a location. This user also has created categories against current naming conventions/consensus too (see their talkpage, which he blanks each time). Lugnuts  (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose That standard would still apply, so there is no problem there. I have done in the past, yes. Brad7777 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Born in' was determined to be not defining years ago at one or more CfDs. The problem is that it is not defining for everyone/most/all. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per Naming_conventions_(categories) and Categorization_of_people.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support this one and West Springfield if it is added to the nomination. This was discussed and resolved long ago and simply creating categories in violation of the existing naming conventions seems to be pointy if it is not supported by a discussion that allows exceptions.  Clearly not the case here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I did notice the difference in articles, so I placed all the correct articles into the "people born in" category, (which is at the moment a subcat of "people from"). 129 were "born in", and 51 were left in "people from". I guess I fail to see how Category:Year X Births is notable/defining, but not Category:Births in X. Also, I did not create it to cause a violation, i did it to create an notable/characterstic/defining extension. This extension is objective, so not sure it would need a discussion on inclusion criteria. Brad7777 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid issue in these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Brad7777 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nelson Piquet, Jr. was born in Heidelberg, West Germany, but he isn't German or notable for being from West Germany - he's Brazilian. He just happened to be born in West Germany because his parents were there for the Grand Prix at the time (as Nelson Piquet was a Formula One driver of some small repute); there's precisely zero notability with regards to Germany for him. His year of birth, on the other hand, doesn't depend on where he was geographically at the time of birth. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I see the point you are making on notability, but then doesn't that imply that Nelson Piquet, Jr. should be removed from Category:People from Heidelberg as it is not notable in this case? (And similarly for all other special cases?) Brad7777 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could well mean that. Being born somewhere does not automatically mean that the person is "from" that place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He probably should be, yes. Worth mentioning in Heidelberg's article, but not in the cat. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per nominator....William 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per long understood policy.--TM 02:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support we do not classify people by place born. This is especially true of city level places.  If there is no evidence they were there after birth, than do not classify them there at all.  This is why I think we should delete Category:Place of birth missing, it makes no sense to have a category based on lacking what we do not categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Category:Place of birth missing is more of a tracking category and works with the current PersonData template to identify missing data.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Standard title for category. However, I do not agree that we should remove people who were born in a place from the category if they were not also brought up there. In my opinion "People from Foo" refers to people who were born in or brought up in a place. Where someone is born is relevant (not least because it's the place on their birth certificate) - I was not brought up in the town of my birth (since that's just where the hospital was), but I still tend to give that town as my place of origin, even though I actually identify more with other places. "I was born in X but grew up in Y" is quite a common description. What I do not agree with is putting people in a "People from Foo" category just because they live there, which seems to be rather common - they're not "from" that place; it's just their abode. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...whaaaa? Someone who lives somewhere is not "from" that place unless they were born or raised there? I'm not sure that that is the way to go with these types of categories. If someone lives as a permanent resident in some place during their adulthood, I would say they are well and truly "from" that place. If we used your standard, we could not say that Barack Obama is "from Chicago", which I think would obviously be a mistake. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would say that if we open these categories to everyone who has ever lived there then the categories may just as well be deleted as being utterly pointless. Incidentally, "born or raised" has always been the accepted standard for the British "People from Foo" categories, although there have naturally been dissenting voices (usually from people from those towns who want to include every celebrity who has ever spent more than a week in their pet town just to show how important it is). "People associated with Foo" can be used if you really need a category for people who live there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how limiting it to "born or raised" keeps the category relevant. The category is relevant if it categorizes people who are notable for being from there, regardless of what that exactly means. Consensus has been consistent in CFDs from the past that place of birth is generally not defining, but being "from" somewhere can be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally a rename from category:People from X to Category:People associated with X sound's good to me. And having sub-cats such as Category:Born in X, Category:People who live in X etc where appropriate. What we have at the moment is overcomplicated, vague and misleading. It's potential for characteristic/organic improvement is being prevented by outdated standards. I think the problem is trying to make this category both inclusive and exclusive Brad7777 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * example Take William Pynchon the founder of Springfield, Massachusetts. No doubt he should be in a category of the form Category:People ~ Springfield, Massachusetts. But he is not from Springfield, Massachusetts. The word "from" is exclusive. But Category:People from Springfield, Massachusetts is acting as if it is inclusive, which is all good, but should use a relation instead of "from" that is actually inclusive, so be renamed to something like Category:People associated with Springfield, Massachusetts to emphasize this. The subcategories of this, then could be exclusive, like as an example Category:People born in Springfield, Massachusetts, whilst still have the inclusive parent category for any exceptions (like William Pynchon - the founder) Brad7777 (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the sort of thing we need. The categories at the moment are vague. For the British categories, "People from Foo" generally means the place where the person was born or raised (up to adulthood). Most people, in my experience, when they say "I'm from X" mean that's where they were born or grew up, not where they live now. I, for example, grew up 200 miles from my present home and haven't lived there for over 20 years, but I still say that's where I'm "from". Some towns also have a "People connected with Foo" category for people who lived there or were otherwise closely connected with the place, but weren't actually "from" there. "People from Foo" then becomes a subcat. See, for example, Category:People from Plymouth and Category:People connected with Plymouth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently "I'm from Foo" means a different thing on your side of the pond. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently. Although given the apparent American obsession with "hometowns" it seems to mean the same thing there too. Or does your hometown change every time you move? To me, if I used the term at all, it would mean where I grew up. It's always seemed to me from the media that it means pretty much the same thing in North America. Obviously I'm wrong and it just means "where my home is at the moment, which may change in six months time". Which seems odd, but there you go. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point you are missing is that to be categorized as being "from" somewhere it has to be a defining characteristic, like any other categorization. So we wouldn't categorize someone for being "from" somewhere if they briefly lived there for 6 months. For someone like Obama, though—it can safely be said that being "from" Chicago is defining for him, even though he was not born or raised there and it is not his "hometown". If you actually apply the categories as they are supposed to be applied, the problem you are highlighting goes away. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question In what situation would you say being from somewhere is defining? Brad7777 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easier to say when I would not regard someone as being from somewhere as defining. If they were born there and left in childhood—not defining. If they lived there briefly and the reason they are notable has nothing to do with the time they lived there—not defining. One converse example—if a politician is elected to a legislature to represent a district where he lives, being "from" that place is defining for him, regardless of how long the politician has lived there or if he or she was born or raised there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with 'connected with' or 'associated with' is that they are probably too ambiguous to be objectively used. Take the case where someone spent time in a place in order to design a major building, one of 30 that they designed.  Should they be listed in one of these suggested categories?  How about 30? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, category:Architects for Springfield, Massachusetts might be of use in that case. The "associated with" or "from" category should be most vague as to include anyone related to the place, that does not belong to a more specific child of it. Basically it would act like a sieve-category. With an advantage; as it is being populated, the common reasons for the inclusion of articles into this category could give birth to more child categories. It would be beautiful. But on a serious note, Category:People connected with Plymouth does this just fine. Brad7777 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, 'architects for' seems excessively ambiguous and very unclear as to its purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In this hypothetical situation Category:Architects for buildings in Springfield, Massachusetts would be more exclusive? Or even Category:Designers of the buildings in Springfield, Massachusetts? Brad7777 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which presupposes that the architects are notable for having designed these buildings. Is Frank Gehry notable for having designed the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health?  Or did he get the commission for being notable for his past works?  I would suspect that it is the latter and hence not defining for the architect.  However the fact that he did design it, could well help establish the notability of a building.  If you go in this direction, how do you know when you cross the line between establishing notability and getting commissions for being notable?  Can you gain or increase or establish your notability for a late in life design?  How does that affect the notability of earlier designs?  All in all, there are too many issues with creating categories in that direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any article that exists on "designers of buildings" should exist because they are notable, or because there work is notable. All the buildings of a city that a designer has designed for a city are notable with respect to the the designer and with respect to that city's history. The degree of notability of such buildings, and how/when the designer became notable should be the article. Brad7777 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This strikes me as yet another example of "The Church of Born and Raised" rearing its ugly head again. In my case, I've had very little to no connection to my birthplace since leaving, which was during the 1970s.  (The institutional memory has come in handy for improving a few Wikipedia articles on places there, but that's a whole other matter.)  I mostly grew up in the same place where I live today.  In spite of that, I still wind up in far too many annoying conversations wherein someone is brainwashed into believing that the fact that I wasn't born here is somehow a defining characteristic.  I came across this CFD by virtue of Mike Gravel being on my watchlist.  Gravel was born in Springfield, but also grew up there.  Should he belong in both categories?  That just confuses things, IMO.  I also do a lot of work on articles of other Alaskan politicians.  If you're not familiar with Alaska, we don't have a hospital in every community, not even close.  Moreover, even in the case of communities with hospitals, early hospitals had a reputation for being very primitive when compared with the rest of the United States.  Bob Bartlett, Loren Leman, Randy Phillips, Mary Sattler and George M. Sullivan (amongst many others) were all born in communities apart from their family's regular place of residence for pretty much this very reason.  Dennis Egan, whose family lived in Valdez, was born in Juneau, primarily because his older sister died at 7 months old and his parents thought that the chances of another child actually surviving were better were he to be born in a more modern hospital.  It just so happened that he later moved to Juneau and became one of its more prominent citizens.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike Gravel is also from 2 other cities, how does that work? Was he raised in all 3 cities? I still don't see why a well populated category should be deleted, it is notable from a biographical point of view. Brad7777 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, but I have to say I'm absolutely mystified by some of the comments here. What on earth could be more defining for a person than where they were born and raised? Utterly ludicrous. Oh well, since such bizarre opinions are being expressed and apparently supported I shall stay out of further discussion. This is why I rarely get involved in CfDs any more. They're even stranger than AfDs! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This initiative deserves to live. Never mind disregard for our rigid bureaucracy and standard ways of doing this (certainly per WP:Ignore all rules). We could have a lengthy project-wide RfC on this or we could simply allow these categories to stay and let the rest unfold place dynamically. __meco (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but... I do agree that there should be consideration of the issue, as I often see places with major area hospitals, where people are being categorized as "from" that place even though their only connection is that they were born there, but this is a decision that should be far, far broader than the Springfield, Massachusetts area. Unless there is consensus that we will be distinguishing between birthplace and place of residence on a more global basis, the current "people from ..." structure does an appropriate (if imperfect) job. Alansohn (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed; IMHO WP:COMMONSENSE is and should be the dictum here, which produces the 'if somebody is notable for being from X, categorise them as from X' standard...which is the way things already are done, AFAICT, by and large, without any need for weasel wording the category names to say 'associated with' or whatnot. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment I don't think anybody is notable for being from X, so I guess it could be seen as weasel wording, but at least it is towards a non-biased category name. I haven't seen one person with an article justified purely because they are from a particular place, so it cannot be notable. However, I do think somebody can be notable for doing something which is associated with a place, such as founders, mayors etc.  Brad7777 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Plants used in traditional South and Central American medicine

 * 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. This is without prejudice to creating something similar when it can be supported by citations in lists or articles. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting plants used in traditional south and central american medicine


 * Nominator's rationale: No article on traditional south and central American medicine, possibly fails WP:OR Brad7777 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Do categories necessarily need a main article? I put plants in there because the articles themselves said they were used in traditional medicine. I was going to diffuse the category out with subcats once it was filled, by the way. Asarelah (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply no but I think they should be sourced. The only article that is in this category the article category is Açaí palm, which doesn't say it is a traditional medicine or even a medicine anywhere on the page. Brad7777 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to reply Not anymore, I have just added another entry to this category - I am sure there are many more. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply I agree there are probably many more. Brad7777 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. If there are more, listify which would allow for sourcing. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose I can recreate it eventually (with a proper list) if its deleted. Sorry I did a slap-shod job with it. Asarelah (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete until we have an article it will be unclear what this medicinal tradition is. Is this an indigenous tradtion (in which case I would question this broad of grouping) or is this from medicianal practices of people in Ibero-American culture?  If that is the case I would say a rename to Category:Plants in traditional Latin American medicine would be needed since the current name is potentially trans-cultural, and excludes Mexico for no logical reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This area of Wikipedia needs a lot of work. Deleting what exists already is not the way to go. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment ypou have not dealt with the fact that the very idea of "traditional South and Central American medicine" is a flase notion because it either groups together too much or too little, if it was "Traiditional Latin American medicine" kit probably would fly, but it isn't so we have to delete it as creating a false zone of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In my defense, I was going to split and subdivide everything into sub categories for countries/regions/cultural groups. I'm not quite as obtuse as I seem, I assure you. Asarelah (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment You should try this out in your sandbox first as the top category distinction you made seems like an original intersection. Creating a sourced list first would negate this fact. I can give you a hand if you need with creating possible lists for different cultures/regions/countries as per sources. Brad7777 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for problems discussed above. It also seems a bit -centric to the one purpose/usage. If there were a sourced list that existed, perhaps we could reconsider. That would definitely be a good first step, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Analytic philosophers

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Analytic philosophers to Category:20th-century analytic philosophers and Category:21st-century analytic philosophers
 * Nominator's rationale: All analytic philosophers are specifically from those era's. All analytic philosophers have categories "Analytic philosophers" & "X-century philosophers", so a split would merge this. "X-century philosophers" seems arbitrary without a link to the characteristic traditions. Brad7777 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm still open minded, but I just don't think it's worth it.Greg Bard (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I created this CFD, I oppose. On second thought, it would be better to make this a sub-cat of Category:20th-century philosophers and Category:21st-century philosophers if consensus agrees. This probably should be closed. Brad7777 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a split between only 20th and 21st century becomes a presnet/not present split, which we discorage. Beyond this, with the 21st century onlu 12 years old, many people in the 21st century cat would also be in the 20th century cat.  In general century cats should not be formed unless the schema can create 3 such cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre

 * 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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 22. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre


 * Propose deleting swedish heavy metal musical groups by genre


 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent, Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __meco (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
 * Category:American heavy metal musical groups by genre
 * Category:Canadian heavy metal musical groups by genre
 * Category:Russian heavy metal musical groups by genre
 * I am now unsure how to proceed with this nomination, especially so as this added level is also present one level up, i.e.,
 * Category:Rock music groups
 * Category:Rock music groups by genre
 * My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __meco (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * keep these are well developed category trees running into several 100 articles. It seems this is a working set of categories, even if they are only applied within a few nationalities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Magical girls

 * 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 to Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Magical girls -> Category:Magical girls in anime and manga
 * Nominator's rationale Rename this confusing category because it has been applied incorrectly to such articles as Hermione Granger and Sabrina Spellman. The category cannot be used for magical girls in the general sense, because its parent cats are all anime and manga related. Therefore, this category should specify by its name that it is also anime and manga related, to avoid all confusion in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters. I agree that the current name is ambiguous; however, the proposed rename does not make it clear that the category is for individual girls and not for the general concept, covered by the parent Category:Magical girl anime and manga. "Characters" also fits with the parent Category:Female stock characters in anime and manga (a descendant of Category:Stock characters).- choster (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal perge anime specific parents. I see no reason why this category should be limited to one specific genre, we generally classify fictional people by trait without regard to the genre they appear in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a specific type of character within the world of anime/manga. There is no such thing as a "Magical Girl" outside of anime and manga, although there may be mere magical girls.- choster (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment why is it called Magical girls if it can include magical boys. I have to say that this category name makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, there's no such thing as a "Magical Boy". The genre is univerally "Magical Girls" and the characters are invariably female. (Characters like Tuxedo Mask are not referred to as "Magical ____"). - The Bushranger One ping only 16:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right, however the heading of the category says "For individual magical girl and magical boy characters and archetypes in anime and manga." It may be wrong, but that is what it says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * General observation on the Category:Stock characters hierarchy The various stock character categories are in fact typically divided up by genre. However, there is a serious problem pervading the structure, in that most pages in it are not about stock character types. Most are either specific characters who fit into one of the stock types, or even performers of such characters. I'm not sure I would accept that some of these categories are of stock characters; for instance, we have Category:Fictional pirates, which covers pretty much everyone within the genre of pirate stories. It's not at all clear to me that Elizabeth Swann (who is, as we know, a woman) has much to do with Captain Hook (who is not) other than excellent hairstyling courtesy of Disney and the generally piratical milieu in which each appears. It gets worse with something like Category:Fictional dinosaurs, which I invite readers to survey. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters per above arguments. This needs to be very clear to avoid confusion in the future. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters per discussion. - jc37 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

More comics immortals

 * 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: listify. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting dc comics immortals
 * Propose deleting marvel comics immortals
 * Propose deleting wildstorm immortals


 * Nominator's rationale: Listify, following Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 3, which was closed with a consensus to listify two head categories (i.e. replace them with one or more lists). The list(s) have not yet been created. It would be desirable to deal with these similar sub-categories at the same time. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify per previous CfD discussion. - jc37 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify per previous CfD discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Current Grand Ole Opry members
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Current Grand Ole Opry members to Category:Grand Ole Opry members
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, per the convention to not subdivide most categories for people into "former" or "current" statuses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge we avoid current categories. In general once someone qualifies for a category they should always qualify (living people is an exception, but that category exists because of real world issues about being sued for lible).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If a person is no longer a member should the be on the list of members? They could be fired, they could die or they could become inactive.Tomsv 98 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We categorise people by affiliation without distinguishing past, present, etc. For "Current members of the Grand Ole Opry", we would use a list. Your concern above is exactly why we don't categorise using "current". - The Bushranger One ping only 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom - "current"/"past"/"modern"/etc. categories are deplorable and should be eliminated wherever possible. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as I understand it a member will be in the category if they have ever been a member. There could be a list of current members, but that would not be necessary in this case as The Opry maintains a list and it could be an external link or source or both.  The circumstances of why they are no longer a member would be in the text of the article.Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia seeks to be a self-contained reference work. The fact that outside organizations have easily accesible lists is no reason for us not to have such a list.  Wikipedia is not meant to be a place where you have to use external links to find useful information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - As noted above. Including that "current" belongs on a list not a cat. - jc37 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Churches by dedication
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Consensus is that common dedication, despite not being at the same level as merely common naming, is not sufficiently defining to merit categorization. If anyone would like to create lists of churches by dedication, I can provide a list of the categories' contents upon request. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting churches by dedication
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint agnes
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint andrew
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint joseph
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint mary
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint pancras
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint paul
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saint peter
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to saints peter and paul
 * Propose deleting churches dedicated to the sacred heart
 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a recently created scheme, and appears to me to just be a re-worded variation of "churches named XXXX" or "churches named after XXXX", which have been repeatedly deleted as overcategorization by shared naming feature. I understand that the wording is slightly different and a church being "dedicated" to someone is slightly different than merely being "named after" them, but I don't see why the distinction would mean we would categorize churches "dedicated" to a particular person but not categorize other buildings or things "named after" the person. We have some lists, such as List of churches named after Saint Joseph, and some disambiguation pages, such as Church of Saint Pancras. These seem to me to the ideal way of dealing with this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Church by dedication (or Patron Saint] is a category in the Italian wikipedia, as well as the German and French. In fact there are fifteen different Wikipedias that have this list.  It is also (extensively) done within Wikimedia Commons.  I realise that Wikipedia can have a tin ear in regard to religious implications (although the original debate was about six years ago) but dedication is similar but not identical to naming.  Dedication will mean that the feast day of the saint is celebrated in that church, the Saint is represented in art work and there will often be relics of the Saint there.   I wasn't aware of the previous debate in 2006 - and it's perhaps indicative that this is a relevant category that it gets created again.  That and the fact that the English Wikipedia seems to be the only large Wiki project that has taken this stance.  JASpencer (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was also discussed in 2009 here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (possibly listifying). Despite the attitude being taken by otehr WPs, I still regard this as a trivial association.  We do not generally allow categories for people sharing a surname.  Certainly for the most commonly used dedications, suhc as Peter, Paul, Mary, and John. The category is likely to become unmanageably large.  It might possibly be appropriate for some rarer dedications.  Nevertheless if we allow it at all, the category must be limited to actual articles on churches: we must not allow places to be added, because their parish church has the dedication: a common abuse of the category system.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note for St Pancras, 7 out of 24 entries are already italicised links, being redirects to a dab list page. This points out the direction that this new tree is likely to go.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's the only category with such links. JASpencer (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the only one with pre-existing lists or disambiguation pages that are categorized, though: List of churches named after Saint Joseph, St. Peter and St. Paul's Church, Sacred Heart church. Why are we duplicating in categories what is already covered with disambiguation pages? Categories are not meant to operate as disambiguation pages for things with a common name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dedication is more than simply naming. These are not churches that are all named First Street Congregational.  However some editors seem intent on (mis)understanding this to be the case.  That's getting quite frustrating. JASpencer (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise that and acknowledged it in the initial nomination statement. However, I don't think it's significant enough a difference to justify categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this is in reality a "shared name" category, something we do not do here at wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there the proliferation of shared name directories on the Italian, German and French wikipedias? They treat these as dedications and not "in reality a shared name".  JASpencer (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, there's a lot that goes on in the non-English wikipedias that don't conform to the English-language WP's guidelines. Especially in the German one. [Sorry, German speakers. :)] So yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there was a bunch of categorization by shared name in the non-English WPs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't my point. My point was that we are wrong as we are treating dedication as "only" naming, not that they are wrong because they are running named categories (and there is no evidence that they are).  JASpencer (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not treating it as only naming, and I acknowledged as much in my initial nomination statement. I just don't think it's significant enough a difference to justify categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm going to have to go along with the "shared name" analysis. Consider how all the Anglican and Orthodox and many Methodist and Lutheran churches as well get folded into the Catholics, and I really don't see the commonality beyond the likelihood of some small similarity of theme in the ornaments. Aslo, these are manageable only because not much has been entered into them; if every church on the NRHP and its English equivalent were added, some of these categories would be huge. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There really seems to be a strong cultural bias here.  For example would the editor Wikipedian call Hindu, Jewish or Muslim artwork "decor" or is this sneering for one particular religious community?  JASpencer (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The English WP has an anti-Christian bias ... now that's a new one for me! Stick around long enough and you'll hear anything here! Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that mainline and evangelical Protestants share the bewilderment about the importance of church dedication that agnostics and atheists feel - an ignorance that seems despite my repeated and admitedly poor attempts to explain to be invincible in this discussion. JASpencer (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that's what is going on here. (I for one am not mainline Protestant, evangelical Protestant, agnostic, or atheist.) I'm understanding your point and I acknowledge the meaning of church dedication in Catholicism; I think there is probably just disagreement on the level of its significance and whether we need to categorize by it or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose that there are those who think that Episcopalians are anti-Christian, but even the Catholics among us must admit that the stained glass and mural iconography in western churches does not have any fixed relationship to what goes on in the church or even the church's dedication. Heck, my parish had no representation of its patron in it until about sixteen years ago, and even then it isn't in the church proper. Now, there are churches that have interesting dedications, but by and large these are the oddballs. Mangoe (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The dedication of a church to a patron saint is something much different and more committing than simply "naming after" someone. I.e. it is pretty defining. It may not always be, depending on denomination, but in general this strong connection should justify this scheme. __meco (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment with some of these category names it is not even clear that the categories will be limited to only churches named for the same specific saint. The fact that these categories are going to take random churches from multiple religious traditions and throw them together suggests that yes, this is a grouping by shared name.  A Lutheran, an Episcopalian, a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox Church may all be named for Saint Andrew, but to claim they should be grouped together because of this seems a bit much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the Catholic Church we give the church or parish under the patronage of a saint. Church or parish may have different names, regardless of the name of the patron. For example, the colloquial or regional names. Parishioners dedicate the parish of the church to saint in thanks or give themselves under his care. It is one of the principles of faith in the Catholic Church. Polish Wikpedia also categorize churches and parishes by dedication. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment this is not limited to the Catholic Church, so Catholic Church practices cannot be used to force this category to all churches sharing the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I'm dubious about this. Part of the problem for me is that the dedicatee of a church may well be different from the name of the church or parish. e.g. Our parish's patron is different from the name of the church which is different again from the dedicatee of the building. The problem then becomes how to distinguish patrons from dedicatees and both from church names. The general editor who is not aware of this problem is simply going to categorise St. Foo's into a category that contains other St. Foo churches, and not stop to realise that the church is actually dedicated to St. Bar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OC. As Mangoe noted, the nominal dedication of a church usually has little or no bearing on what goes on there, so this is not a defining characteristic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Listify if wanted. But honestly, other than for disambiguation (or maybe statistical reasons?) there's little reason to group together churches named after a particular saint. And I'll call hogwash to the idea that the individual saint is in any way defining to the church in question. They mostly just get added to the list of saints in the church service, and artwork pertaining to the saint may be more prevalent on location. Otherwise, it's mostly just about what the church is named. - jc37 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 prime ministers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women prime ministers to Category:Female heads of government
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The nominated category is a new category, and while it is incompletely populated it essentially duplicates the target category, which is not terribly large so as to need dividing into prime ministers and non-prime ministers. The distinction is rather dubious anyways, since often a non-head of state that is head of government is referred to as a "prime minister" regardless as to whether that is the position's official title or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support but keep the present category as a cat-redirect: it is an obvious search term. We had an issue a little while back as the the correct Enlish for the presidente in Spain, usually translated into English as "Prime Minister", reflecting the nature of the position in a constitutional monarchy, rather than transliteration.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, the less clutter the better; the above would be a larger, more inclusive category. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. is sufficient; the particular title that any given country's head of government actually holds isn't a particularly important distinction here. But do keep the  title in place as a category redirect per Peterkingiron. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal makes no sense, unless the parent Category:Prime ministers is also merged with Category:Heads of government. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Female prime ministers are female heads of government. Therefore the proposal here is for them to be categorised as the latter and as 'prime ministers' without gender diffusion. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment (Oppose for now) - This would pull them out of other trees like Category:Prime ministers, and Category:Female government ministers. While we could do a multiple upmerge, it seems somewhat counter-intuitive, especially in the latter case. And the "common-ness" of the term is (I believe) only common in parliamentary-style governments. I'd welcome further discussion on this. - jc37 20:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose these terms are not synonymous. I am not 100% sure that all prime ministers count as "heads of government".  Even if they do, as long as Category:Heads of government is distict from Category:Prime ministers having this distinction here makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.