Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 11



Category:Anglican bishops of Connor & others

 * 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.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Anglican bishops of Connor to Category:Bishops of Connor
 * Propose renaming Category:Anglican bishops of Waterford and Lismore to Category:Bishops of Waterford and Lismore
 * Propose renaming Category:Anglican bishops of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh to Category:Bishops of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh
 * Nominator's rationale: There is no need to disambiguate it. There is no Bishops of Connor in any other denomination in Ireland or elsewhere. Alternatively, re-name it to Category:Bishops of Connor (Church of Ireland), per other bishoprics of the Church of Ireland. Ditto for Waterford and Lismore. Ditto Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename all to "Bishops of Foo". LL is right that the denominational qualifier is superfluous, but the parent is Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland and 15 of its subcats are "Anglican Bishops of Foo". Only 1 subcategory uses "Bishops of Foo (Church of Ireland)". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename all, provided there is no ambiguity. The disambiguator "Church of Ireland" should be added where (but only where) there is ambiguity.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2013 (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:Mainline denominations

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mainline denominations to Category:Mainline Protestant denominations
 * Nominator's rationale: Per it's near eponymous article Mainline Protestant. Alternatively delete it as is seems too exclusionary. One man's mainline is other man's bunch of swivel-eyed loonies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator and per head article, unless anyone can suggest a better alternative. The renaming is a clarification, but (as the nom notes) it is still unsatisfactory;despite being in common usage, it is POV. The article says that the term is used to categorise denominations that are affiliated with the National Council of Churches, and that may provide the basis of a better name. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (changing my !vote) per WP:OC. I should have read the whole of the head article at the outset, but having read it in full (particularly the list of denominbations) it's clear that there are several competing definitions of "mainline" which lead to very different views of the category's scope. This sort of material is better captured in a list, which can explain how different perspectives lead to radically different lists. Attempting to use this sort of fluid definition as the basis of a category just leads to edit wars, as good faith editors make their case for choosing one of the competing sets of inclusion criteria. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While there may be differences of opinion on the margins, there are unambiguously mainline churches, and we have some which say "is a mainline church" in their leads or with mainline in the infobox. Ambiguous cases can be removed. --JFH (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is usually the case with subjective categories: a small number of topics unambiguously fit, but many more are subjective. When populating such a category, editors are forced to choose between one POV or another, and that's a breach of the core policy of WP:NPOV. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose, unnecessary, "Protestant" is only necessary out of the context of Christianity, but there are no non-Protestant mainline denominations. As for the deletion/rescoping suggestion, the label is in common usage in RSes, and it shouldn't be difficult to establish which churches are called mainline by RSes. I think they're looney's but I recognize it as a useful classification. Given the definition at Mainline Protestant, a church must be part of the NCC and "have deep historic roots in and long-standing influence on American society". That does not apply to many of the members of the NCC. It also seems like a very useful categorization for someone interested in American Protestantism. --JFH (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Question... is the Catholic Church not considered a "mainline denomination"? (I always assumed it was, but perhaps I was wrong? Blueboar (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, perhaps if it is being used as a synonym for "mainstream", but in America it has a specific meaning: the older Protestant denominations. --JFH (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But, this is not just an American encyclopedia, so we should not name things with Amerocentrcism. Anyway, the fact that there is not a universally agreed upon definition is problematic. Plus, it is a historically sensitive term. What is MAinline in 1980 may not quite be "MAinline" in 1810.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not Amerocentric to use a word which refers to a group of American churches. The definitional problem applies equally to Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, etc. The solution is a consensus of RSes, such that we can say in the article "such-and-such is a mainline church" without qualifiers, just like every other category is supposed to work. --JFH (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename/Merge to Category:Members of the National Council of Churches. The current name is too American-centric to work for a global encyclopedia, and also not really clear enough. Plus, it has major problems of presenting as "MAinline", a term that has strong power of assigning normative power to things so designated. While the membership of the council might not all be considered "Mainline" it is the closest to a workable, agreed upon definition we have, and the only way we can end up with a clear yes or no answer. It also avoids the horrible normative nature of the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to support JPL's suggested merger as an alternative to deletion. For all the reasons he sets out (Amero-centricity, normative terminology, subjective inclusion), the current category is unworkable. The NCC category has a slightly different scope, but it avoids all the problems. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I too can support JPL's suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to support JPL's suggestion, as it appears to be Americo-centric. An alternative might be members of World Council of Churches, but that is not as inclusive as it sounds as certain evangelical groups and the Catholics had kept out of it, because they approved of its liberal tendencies.  If we are to keep a "mainline" category, some one needs to provide a robust definition for what is mainline, to show trhat this is not a POV category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support or delete hyper-Protestant bias, per BHG, maybe deletion is best. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not merge. The nominated category has competing definitions, and the list in the main article is more useful. I reckon I've heard "mainline denominations" used in the UK, so the category also fails to present a global meaning, or to define a national scope in its name. Merging is not helpful as this is not a sub-cat, and the suggested target has a defined membership of its own and ought to be complete already. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Our article on "Mainline Protestant Churches" defines it as an American term, originiating in American discussions, and possibly with a very specific American entymology, although the article expresses reservations about that. It really is not workable in the UK where you have the CofE and everyone else as non-conformists, and it clearly would not work in France or Italy. It is an American term that relates to the nature of religion in the US, although in many ways was more applicable to the situation a century ago than today. I have no problem with just deleting the category though. What is clear is the current name is horrible in its assertion of normative acceptability to the group involved. We do not have say Category:Dissident Catholic denominations or Category:Heterodox sects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support nom. Clearer for those unused to the term. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the term "denomination" only applies to Protestant churches. Adding "Protestant" is a tautology and an unnecessary disambiguator. Bermicourt (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening two paragraphs of our article on denomination say "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. The term describes various Christian denominations (for example, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicanism, and the many varieties of Protestantism). The term also describes the four branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist), and describes the two main branches of Islam (Sunni and Shia)." That shows that the view that deonomiantion can only be Protestant is not a widely held view. You also continue to ignore the fact that this is a normative name that endorses as established and regular certain religious groups. It is a POV-pushing name that wikipedia should avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The opening line of the Mainline Protestant article is "The Mainline Protestant churches (also called mainstream American Protestant[1] and "oldline Protestant"[2][3][4][5]) are a group of Protestant churches in the United States". Does it even make sense to have a category with such a broad name being filled with a US-specific set of things. This seems needlessly Amero-centric.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2013 (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:Wikipedian user page portraits

 * 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 merge per author request (criterion C2.E). -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedian user page portraits to Category:Wikipedian images
 * Nominator's rationale: There is no practical need to distinguish portraits of Wikipedians from other images of Wikipedians, particularly at this time when the two categories are so lightly populated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom; I created the category in question after not finding the right category for my picture. (Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user page is pretty obscure, thanks for bringing it to my attention!) —  Scott  •  talk  18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (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:Songs written by Dave Berg

 * 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 close and move to CFDS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Dave Berg to Category:Songs written by Dave Berg (songwriter)
 * Nominator's rationale: Per primary article Dave Berg (songwriter). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Good catch, I must have missed it when I when through the whole category tree. You could speed C2D if you wanted. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename as C2B per Dave Berg (songwriter). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:45, 11 August 2013 (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:Government-owned and controlled corporations

 * 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: withdraw nomination. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 11:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Government-owned and controlled corporations to Category:Government-owned companies of the Philippines
 * Nominator's rationale: The convetion of is "Government-owned companies of FOO", and this is also a subcategory of . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * keep as it. Convention need not override a specific proper name used in a particular country. Hmains (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. It is the phrase that is used nearly universally in the Philippines, sometimes shortened to "GOCC".  It is both the common and official name.  I am not sure why "and controlled" is part of it.  Maybe there are government owned but not controlled corporations.  Does the current name cause confusion or prevent some other Wiki function from working properly?  Would adding "Philippines" somehow help? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * keep to match main article Government-owned and controlled corporation. As a proper name, perhaps caps should be used in both the article and the category name? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2013 (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:Snooker venues

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete, though there seems to be a rough agreement that articles should only be placed in the category if this is a defining characteristic of the place, so a "purge" could be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting snooker venues


 * Previous CFDs - CFD1 * CFD2
 * DRV
 * Nominator's rationale: This was deleted at CFD2 and this was challenged at DRV. The outcome of the DRV was relist - see more detailed explanation in my close. As the closer of the DRV this is a procedural listing and I am personally neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - the list of articles that were in the category can be seen at (I'm not sure of the DRV-CFD procedure). DexDor (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename (perhaps purging) -- There is a small list of venues used for world ranking snooker competitions. I recall seeing an event at the Crucible Theatre, Sheffield on TV for a fortnight each year over many years (though I have not always watched).  This suggests some stability in where they have eben held.  I think we have categories for football stadia, so that I do not see why a category such as this should not exist, but it would need to be this Category:Venues for world-ranking snooker events.  Otherwise, every snooker club would qualify (but should not).  A headnote will be needed to define its (narrow) scope, as relating to venues that are regularly used, not merely once or twice.  Such occasional use would constitute a performance (snooker event) by performer (venue).  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That would be not a really good name. For example the Masters (snooker) never a was a ranking event, but it was held at the Wembley Conference Centre from 1979 until its demolition in 2006. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would also not be responsive to the actual purpose of the category, which it self-documents as broader than "world ranking snooker competition venues". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think every snooker club should qualify, if they have an article on Wikipedia. Obviously, not every snooker club should have an article on Wikipedia though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but purge of venues for which snooker is not defining. The Crucible Theatre has been used every year for snooker since the 70s and any competent article on the theatre would mention snooker. Oculi (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify, tighten inclusion criteria (e.g. by removing the words "or which are notable as"), purge (or only repopulate with articles that match the inclusion criteria) and then delete the category if it is empty. The underlying problem here is that (unlike cycling, watersports etc) snooker can take place in a multi-purpose venue - this means that (in theory at least) a venue that is important to snooker (and hence that people expect to be in a "Snooker venues" category, if it exists) might have been designed for and mostly used for other events (and hence snooker isn't a defining characteristic of that venue). This is an example of the problem caused by categorizing things by how they have been used rather than what they are.  The best solution in such cases is to replace the category by a list (which can refer to venues that shouldn't be in a snooker category - Pontins, Wembley Arena etc). The Crucible Theatre is a structure designed to allow spectators to view a performance (theatrical or otherwise) so it clearly should be in Category:Theatres; but it's (slightly) less clear that snooker will always be a defining characteristic of that theatre. DexDor (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: This doesn't provide a defensible rationale for any of these serial changes. The "underlying problem" statement is false; DexDor misunderstands "defining characteristic" as something that must be singular; a list is not magically immune to inappropriate entries being added to it; and DexDor misunderstands notability as something temporal, which it emphatically is not (once the Crucible has become notable for its longstanding connection to snooker, just like Wembley for [association] football and Wimbledon for tennis, that notability and categorization doesn't evaporate even if the place burns down or turns into an apartment complex). More detail below in my main post, but the closer probably won't want or need to wade through it all. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The purpose of categories is simply to organize articles according to their content. That is all they do. If the article does devote coverage to the facility's function as a snooker venue then it seems reasonable to categorize it in that manner. Are we really saying that something like the Crucible Theatre article can have an entire section devoted to its use as a snooker venue but it still shouldn't be catgorized in a way that recognizes that content? If there is content on the article that needs to be maintained by WP:SNOOKER, then that should be reflected in the mechanisms by which we organize the content of Wikipedia articles; and as WP:OC points out, the venue does not need to be a special purpose venue to be categorized as such. It is solely a content issue and nothing more: if the facility has a notable use as a snooker venue that is reflected in the coverage of the article then it satisfies the requirement. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked "[can an article] have an entire section devoted to its use as a snooker venue but it still shouldn't be catgorized in a way that recognizes that content?". The answer is yes - for example an article about a city might have sections about architecture, transport, industry, sport etc but wouldn't normally be categorized under architecture/transport/industry/sport. As for maintenance by WP:SNOOKER - isn't that what talk page categories like Category:High-importance Snooker articles are for ? DexDor (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges, DexDor. A building would in fact normally be categorized for all of its notable uses and other properly-sourced facts, e.g. as a theatre, as a war-time hospital, as an allegedly haunted house, as a building erected in 1876, etc., etc., etc.  No city is ever categoried as "an architecture", "a transport", etc., so your attempt at comparison is wildly fallacious, and frankly pretty incomprehensible. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What you do usually get on articles about cities is templates that list articles connected to the city's architecture and transport etc, such as London, so such characteristics are still used for organization but just not carried out through categories. Any reader that is interested in notable buildings in London or its transport still has instant access to related articles through the navboxes on those articles. Likewise, if an article about a facility devotes coverage to its function as a snooker venue then it is reasonable to assume a reader may be interested in other venues that provide a similar function. For example, the Crucible Theatre received 36,000 hits in total last year, but over 18,000 of those hits came in April and May while the snooker world championship was in progress. Clearly those hits were due to its use as a snooker venue, so it's not an implausible assumption to assume that those same readers may be interested in reading about other venues that host snooker tournaments. Betty Logan (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely correct - e.g. you said "What you do usually get on articles about cities is templates that list articles connected to the city's architecture and transport etc ... so such characteristics are ... not carried out through categories", but if there's an article on transport in Foo then that would be categorized under Foo (and under Transport). Anyway, here there isn't (currently) a "Snooker at the Crucible Theatre" article (for which snooker would be a defining characteristic).  An article about a place (e.g. a town) gets lots of hits when an event (e.g. a disaster) happens there, but that shouldn't affect which categories the article is in.  Note: If the Snooker venues category only contained articles about subjects for which snooker is important (e.g. CT) then, although it may not strictly be a defining characteristic, I wouldn't have CFDed it - the problem is that it has become a Camel's nose allowing articles like Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre to be categorized under snooker. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're missing the screamingly obvious fact that there certainly could and arguably should and very likely eventually will be a Snooker at the Crucible Theatre article, so your argument collapses. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Selective merge of this and Category:Billiard halls to Category:Cue sports venues; there is only one article billiard hall, and the separation of categories does not seem useful to me. By all means keep the more specific category pages as redirects. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO CLOSER: I have also tagged that category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Further note to closer: That's an exemplary case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and provides no actionable rationale for upmerging the snooker category to the cue sports one, which effectively cannot be done, due to the categorization rationale of the sports categories. All the snooker subcategories are independently subcats of parent categories (snooker is treated by the mainstream media and other non-historical reliable sources as an independent sport, not simply as some misc. variant of billiards, which it is only developmentally, just as Australian rules football grew out of association football, to which the Australian game's subcats cannot sanely be upmerged).  The snooker topics are  subcats of the parent  categories, because the historical relationship is a real one.  This is fine and normal, just as a band and its album, song, etc., subcats can be categorized in two different musical genres' subcats as parents, even if category links between the genres indicate a developmental relationship between them. WP categories are not unilaterally hierarchical. Note also the billiard halls category was incorrectly included in this CfD by simply adding an improperly formatted CfD tag to it after the fact (I corrected some of that myself), meanwhile the two categories are not entirely comparable - they do not present the same challenges, contain totally similar articles, and cannot be handled the same way, meanwhile Fayenatic provided no valid reason for upmerging that one, either. More detail below, but it's mostly for Fayenatic, not the closer.  See previous CfDs; this second one and its relisting as this third is effectively, if unintentionally WP:PARENT rehash, raising no new issues at all, just expecting that different eyes will be looking and will somehow reverse the original landslide KEEP consensus, willy-nilly.  Consensus doesn't have to change, no matter how insistent someone is. There is not only no consensus to delete or upmerge either of these categories or redefine their scope, the ideas raised in this CfD that there's even a problem here at all, are generally mutually contradictory, other than a general need to clarify the categories' descriptions and weed out some inappropriate entries. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify That is the only realistic way to keep this limited to the most important places and avoid having anywhere where snooker has been played put in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: Nothing prevents anyone from adding an inappropriate entry to a list any more than to a category. You have not made a case for doing anything more drastic than simply clarifying the wording of the category description. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete snooker, like most sports or games, can be played virtually anywhere. Place by performance category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's not what the category is for, and this is well documented at the category. That was, therefore, an invalid straw man argument and pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which also incorrectly attempts to blame this child category for the alleged sins of the sports venues parent. More detail below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep; do not merge; tighter criteria probably not needed: [Updated 12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)] I'm not editing regularly, and may not be available to re-re-recomment here in response to people, so I'm just going to address all of the arguments I see, and in sufficient length that the faulty logic behind this assault on the categories of a less popular topic are not bent to going after more "important" ones, like all the rest of the sports venue categories (though these may need clarification, rather than deletion) . 1) Category:Cue sports venues is a container category, like most of the cue sport categories. Fayenatic's complaint that there's only one article in the parent Category:Cue sports venues simply is not a valid criticism. We're  any articles directly in the "cue sports"-named container categories, except the most general of all possible cue sports articles! (Or articles that fit the container but which are too few to form a reasonable subcat on their own.)  That's how container categories work.  Other than a few such topmost-level articles, these container categories intentionally and quite naturally divide into snooker, pool and (often, not always) carom billiards topics, just as "football" broadly subdivides logically into association football, rugby (two kinds), Australian rules, American (and Canadian and other forms of gridiron), etc. No one would suggest forcibly merging such topics if they understood them at all.  Fayenatic's "does not seem useful to me" is blatant WP:IDONTKNOWIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  If this editor understood the nature and governance of the disparate cue sports, it would be clear why these are separate, why WP:SNOOKER itself is a separate project from WP:CUE.  "I don't get it" is  a valid deletion rationale.  2)  Contrary to Carlossuarez46, none of these categories has anything at all to with "performances" of any kind (the actual playing of the sport by any particular player or team, for example) but for sports venues by sport.  Exhibit A: It's a subcategory of Category:Sports venues by sport; QED.  The venues categories for snooker and billiards (mostly pool, but there aren't enough carom venues with articles to warrant that split yet and probably never ) are for venues that exist as snooker/billiards venues.  Period.  An article subject may qualify simply because the building is notable and happened to be a pool hall among other roles it played in various periods, or it may be a long-running home of a world championship, or maybe it exists solely for the sport.  There is no special, unique-to-cue-sports reason to treat this category and its criteria any differently than any other.  CfD doesn't determine whether an article properly belongs in a category; editors at that article's talk page do.  3) The categories are  for venues that are overwhelmingly associated with the sport, and the Crucible Theatre is an – perhaps  – legitimate example of that:  Within the snooker world, "the Crucible" has become synonymous with the World Snooker Championship itself (e.g. "his third Crucible title in a row", etc.), and the event is by far the most significant event that takes place annually at the venue.  Even if one were to disqualify that particular venue, on the basis that the category should only include venues that exist for the sole purpose of snooker, that still doesn't magically obviate the need for the category, because snooker venues and pool venues are generally not the same places, aside from some billiard halls that have both kinds of tables, and these are increasingly scarce.  4) Categories like this make sense even when not hugely populated, because they are part of a logical series and a logical, programmatic category structure for sports articles: Category:Sports venues by sport and all of its subcategories.  I find it "interesting" that as soon as I mostly retire from editing, people pop out of the woodwork to launch XfD after XfD against WP:CUE-related pages of all sorts, from templates to redirects to, now, categories.   Where are the CfDs against Category:American football venues, Category:Badminton venues, Category:Table tennis venues, and their subcategories?   There is no logic for singling out cue sports and its subcategory snooker (which is a subcat principally because snooker is reliably sourced as a "world of sport" unto itself at an international level, completely unrelated to the governance, fandom, professional touring circuits, and other facts, figures and processes of the billiards family of games, other than a historical relationship (snooker derive from earlier pocket billiards games like life pool and black pool, in the 19th century). There's thus even a good reason to not merge them.   If the snooker and/or cue sports venues categories are wrongly deleted on the basis of grossly misusing an inapplicable "place by performance" analysis, then the same logic has to be applied to every subcategory of Category:Sports venues by sport, if not Category:Sports venues itself. and various other subcats of the parents Category:Entertainment venues and perhaps Category:Buildings and structures by type.  For example, Category:Comedy venues, Category:Dance venues, and Category:Music venues are obviously "place by performance".  I'm being sarcastic; obviously "place by performance" does NOT include this sort of category at all, but refers to, say, classifying a particular music hall in a Category:Venues where Elvis Presley played or Category:Venues that have hosted post-punk concerts or other nonsense categories.  The fact that someone can recite a phrase like "place by performance" from the overcategorization guidelines doesn't mean they're actually using it properly.  5), I have no objection to tightening the criteria for inclusion, so that venues are not added willy-nilly based on having hosted a few snooker events. But the idea that such tightening is needed is only an argument for cleanup, not for deletion or merging, and more importantly no convincing argument has been made for it to happen.  A few items being categorized wrongly in there is something to address on those articles talk pages, if anyone even resists decategorizing them.  If they do, it's a matter for whether or not the article's content and sources support the inclusion of the category or not.  It's not a CfD issue.  of the criteria, to more clearly discourage adding multipuprose venues simply because snooker (or pool, in the other category) was played there once, is probably in order, but that doesn't require CfD. Moreover, Peterkingiron's criterion for such a proposed tightening of criteria, and concomitant rename to something like Category:Venues for world-ranking snooker events (more likely Category:Snooker world ranking tournament venues)  is not a valid approach, since it would rule out the kind of venue that is the #1 reason the category were created, e.g. the South West Snooker Academy, and wouldn't do anything useful for any of the content of Category:Billiard halls, which have nothing to do with snooker at all.  The fact that the category already legitimately includes other snooker venues besides those used for snooker world ranking tournaments means that one for world ranking events would necessarily have to be a lower-level subcategory.  Arguably there are enough to sub-sub-categorize it like that already!  6) DexDor's analysis is also faulty - we have a very long-standing precedent that the correctness of categorization, like the existence of notability, is not temporary.  The Crucible would not be listed or unlisted as a notable (really, the most notable ever, by some definitions) snooker venue because, say, next year the World Snooker Championship was held somewhere else.  The entire "it's (slightly) less clear that snooker will always be a defining characteristic of that theatre" line of reasoning is just invalid.  The Crucible has for so long, and so tightly, been bound to the ultimate event in professional snooker, watched by millions every year on television, that there is absolutely no question that snooker is in fact part of what defines the Crucible Theatre for WP purposes, and that the Crucible Theatre is part of what defines the World Snooker Championship for WP purposes.  That association may some day be marked by an official end, but that will have no sorcerous power to erase the encyclopedic significance of the association as historical and non-trivial fact.  7) DexDor continues in further error (sorry, I'm not picking on you, just addressing the arguments you're pushing): "The underlying problem here is that (unlike cycling, watersports etc) snooker can take place in a multi-purpose venue". Actually, virtually any sport can take place in a multi-purpose venue, and most of them do.  Even after enormous, world-watched events like the Olympics, facilities get repurposed.  Most sports facilities are, naturally, designed to be repurposed from day-one, because their construction would be far too cost-prohibitive to limit them to a single season of a single sport.  DexDor's made-up criterion here would make it impossible to categorize  sports venues as such at all. It would also make it impossible to categorize something under both a subcat of Category:Music venues and Category:Dance venues, since any such venue used for one could also be used for the other and for who knows what else.  Fortunately, WP:COMMONSENSE generally prevails, and we all know that how our categorization system actually works is that any article can be added to as many categories as clearly apply to it.  This is not somehow mystically different for sports venues, no matter how many sports they host during their respective seasons, and no matter how many other non-sports events they may also host.  Luxor Las Vegas is not delisted from the hotels or casinos categories because we somehow can't handle the fact that it is a multi-use, multi-purpose facility.  DexDor's "underlying problem" is , and doesn't trouble anyone else in Wikipedia, or our categorization system would have collapsed years ago.  8) Betty Logan is entirely correct here: "The purpose of categories is simply to organize articles according to their content. That is all they do. If the article does devote coverage to the facility's function as a snooker venue then it seems reasonable to categorize it in that manner. "  If an article about  a topic makes it clear that the topic is notable as an X, a Y and a Z, then it gets categorized as all three of these.  This is a basic, everyday, dirt-simple fact of how categorization works here.  It also means that if the topic is not reliably sourced as notable in connection to one of these things, then it would not be categorized as such.  This is just how it already works.  There is nothing special and different about cue sports and cue-sports-related cateories, so even the suggestion that the inclusion criteria for these two subcats must be tightened is basically a load of anti-cue-sports nonsense.  If you see something being categorized as a snooker venue that shouldn't be, because its article and the sources cited in it do not demonstrate that it is in fact notable as a snooker venue, you are already empowered to remove that topic from the category, and to demand, per WP:V policy, reliable sources that justify the categorization if someone wants to revert you.   If the article does in fact clearly establish a subject venue's snooker notability (having an entire section about it is one of multiple ways to do this), you have no leg to stand on to begin with and need to quit harassing snooker editors.  9) Importantly, we cannot reasonably be simultaneously proposing that the original category be limited and renamed to only be about snooker world ranking tournament venues, on the basis of their importance to pro snooker, and yet also propose banning those venues' inclusion because they're not solely-snooker venues, as others would have us do.   of those are defensible arguments against this category, as I have shown. Together they demonstrate compelling evidence against the existence of any sort of consensus that there's something wrong with this category, what that something might be, and what to do about it, since they're mutually exclusive approaches!  One person chanting "kill the frog, because it is ugly", and another saying "dress the frog up like a cat" does not make for any kind of consensus to do anything but leave the frog alone.  There are other lurking illogical arguments in this triple-repeat CfD that I could address, but this should be enough already to put this to rest, and keep it abed.  One of the few things I will come back out of wikiretirement for is to try to stop these attempts to undo the good-faith work of WP:CUE and WP:SNOOKER, which seem to be increasing in number and frequency just because some of their early most active editors are away doing other things and the topic areas seem like easy pickings for people with weird axes to grind. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  08:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * comment SMcCandlish, you can lay off the insinuated personal attack against me. I've already explained exactly how I came upon this issue, so you have no grounds for the continued assertion of some sort of prejudice. My observation was, and continues to be, that the members of the category are all conference centers, concert halls, and auditoriums, plus a couple of resorts which have rooms where it is hardly surprising to find pool cue-sport tables. The statement that someone insisted they be "solely" snooker venues is just something you made up; I certainly didn't say it; I would be more convinced by the "repurposing" argument if it amounted to more than bringing in a table when it is needed and removing it after the competition. It's too similar to Category:Science fiction convention venues, which I note that we do not have, because any convention space is suitable if it is capacious enough. None the less I'm not "voting" this time around because it seems to me that the whole "venue" categorization is disregarding the requirement that categories be defining, and I don't have the stamina to fight such an established fault. Seyasirt (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: If something is actually broken here with this snooker subcat in particular [I address the billiards/pool one below, in reply to Fayenatic london] and needs to be fixed, e.g. we think some things are wrongly categorized, then the obvious, non-destructive solution requiring no big debate just WP:BOLDness, is to simply remove the improper articles from the category and word the category's description a bit more clearly. The end, move on. Upmerging to Category:Cue sports venues will  the snooker category structure. Snooker is only  a subcategory of cue sports, historically speaking. It is independently and correctly also categorized as a major world sport in its own right, because it is one.  Merging a snooker topic into cue sports generally because of their developmental relationship is directly comparable to merging bird topics into dinosaur ones. Snooker basically should never have anything to do with it upmerged into the quasi-parent cue sports category, any more than something to do with rugby league or Australian rules football should be upmerged into the association football category just because of their historical derivation.  I agree with you that "any convention space" is in theory suitable for a snooker tournament, and that such venues should not be categorized here simply for having hosted one or a few of them.  You seem to be willfully missing the fact that this is not what either of these subcategories have ever been for, despite me explaining this in great detail.  Again, they're primarily for snooker halls and pool/billiards halls, respectively, and very secondarily for the rare case of a multi-purpose venue (theatre, hotel-casino, convention centre, etc.) being so consistently a site for such events that it's become one of the defining characteristics of the venue, as sourced at that venue's article.  The only snooker one that qualifies for that is surely the Crucible, which is literally synonymous (in context) with the World Snooker Championship, as already detailed.  The other entries in the category should be snooker halls (present or former, as demonstrated by sourced information to this effect in the articles).  To agree again, I don't entirely like the "venues" categorization scheme so much myself. It does lead to trivial-intersection miscategorizations more often than we'd like. But making life difficult for the already under-staffed WP:CUE and WP:SNOOKER projects (almost entirely different editors, BTW) isn't going to fix that, only introduce categorization inconsistencies confusing to both readers and editors. All of the venues categories need to be reexamined as a system/structure for programmatic overhaul, not picked at inconsistently on a topic-by-topic basis.  And not on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nonsense reasons given by some, above.


 * PS: I didn't accuse you of anything specifically, I'm simply noting how, now that one major cue sports editor is almost entirely focused on admin tasks and the other has mostly quit editing, there has been quite a spate of misguided attempts to destroy various templates, redirects, categories and other pages relating to the topic, much more so than when either me or Fuhghettaboutit were very regularly editing in that topic space, and much more so than any other sport or gaming category (except perhaps those that attract a lot of wanky fandom cruft, like video games and role-playing games, which often actually need to be cleaned up of outright garbage). Whether you're participating in an anti-cue-sports pattern consciously or not doesn't mean there is no such pattern. I'm not questioning your motives, I'm questioning the usefulness to the project of what you're proposing, and noting the proposal's similarity to other recent ones in the same topic area, and that it's legitimately observable as a pattern.  I apologize for the fact that my WP:DGAFism about WP bureaucracy/process-mongering, and my firm faith in the guidance at WP:BROKE and WP:IDONTKNOWIT, sometimes has me stepping on the toes of some people who may not deserve it. I really do think, however, that people who aren't well-versed in a particular topic area need to usually refrain from XfDing something with regard to it unless they can convincingly describe a real (not just theoretical or suspected) issue, demonstrate that it is actually problematic in practice, and provide the most minimally disruptive solution involving the path of least disputation.  I don't think you met any of these tests here.
 * PPS: I certainly just make up the idea that some people want to limit the category to venues that are solely for snooker (i.e. snooker halls); that is the entire heart of one side of the criticism of the category, that people have added multi-purpose venues to them.  Commentors on this page have ojected to inclusion of even the Crucible. DexDor has objected, in discussion with Betty Logan here, to the inclusion of any venues that have been other things and were only sometimes notable for and defined by snooker, as if categorization has to represent current events and as if one venue cannot have multiple defining associations it could be categorized under.  Neither of these ideas is actually how WP categorization works, and I'm perfectly right in criticizing them, and for pointing out that they conflict sharply with the other camp of critics, who want to very, very narrowly tailor the category to world snooker ranking tournament venues, regardless of how notable these venues may be for those events. There are multiple complaints, but they're terribly inconsistent, and its important to point this out.  Your falsely accusing me of a straw man here makes your complaint about feeling attacked seem rather hollow.


 * — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: in reply to SMcCandlish, I did not mean that the parent contains only one article; I meant that the pages snooker hall and pool hall redirect to the article billiard hall. Category:Billiard halls states "This category is for venues that are principally established for, or which are notable as, places for the playing of cue sports other than snooker, i.e. billiards and/or pool", so its name is misleading in the case of pool halls, hence it should be upmerged (& redirected) to "cue sports venues". – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: Upmerging everything from Category:Billiard halls into Category:Cue sports venues would kill the latter's role as a container cat., and would lump all those billiard/pool hall articles in with Riviera (hotel and casino), which is a pool/billiards hall. It will blur rather than aid distinction and clarity, and simply reinspire creation of the subcat. to resolve the unnecessary confusion.  It is a  thing that Category:Cue sports venues has a container category tag that discourages anyone from adding things except to its subcats, which fork only into snooker (generally) and billiards/pool  (specifically).  This  the urge to trivially overcat by adding things like convention centers that have hosted one pool tournament – they fit neither in the parent container cat., nor the subcat. "Billiard[s]" has multiple meanings (it's even more complicated than "football"), and in the case of Category:Billiard halls it is a principally North American catchall for "cue sports other than snooker".  As noted above, snooker is, for everything but historical purposes, an independent sport, treated as such on WP as it is in the media (i.e. "we follow the sources"), so the trend is always for it to have its own articles and categories. Thus snooker hall  likely to be an independent article at some point, as will be snooker ball, snooker cue, snooker table, etc. - there are increasingly well-developed sections at the more generic articles that these already redirect to, and a case could be made for splitting some of them already.)  This leaves us asking "what to do with the rest?".  Where it makes sense, e.g. categorization of professional players, who rarely jump major disciplines, we put them in separate Category:Carom billiards players and Category:Pool players structures.  In other cases, such as billiard/pool halls, there is no clear-cut difference, especially when it comes to historical venues, which is the bulk of the articles in Category:Billiard halls – one would usually need to do a lot of original research to find out whether the place was strictly a billiards hall in the carom sense or strictly a pool hall, or both, and we can't do that. This is also a problem with the notion of deciding that this place can be listed in the category for being notable as a pool hall at some point in its history, but this other one can't. That's blatant OR and PoV-pushing. If the article is on a notable venue, and reliable sources say it was a pool hall/billiard hall, that's good enough to put it in this category, just like Leonard Nimoy can also be categorized as a poet, solider, etc., even if principally notable as an actor, and even if he would almost certainly not have been notable for that other work if he'd not already been notable as an actor.  I.e., we cannot make up special, weirdly restrictive rules that only apply to this category and topic. Anyway, in yet other cases, e.g. tables, balls, early history, etc., there's just no reader-helpful reason to fork the articles into separate pool and carom billiards topics.  Generally we prefer natural, real-world usage like "billiard hall" to a made-up phrase like "cue sports hall", if/when it doesn't lead to excessive ambiguity and confusion (Category:Cue sports, by contrast, is named that, not Category:Billiards, for a reason). If cognitive dissonance remains, and its gist is that Category:Billiard halls also includes pool halls but some people object to including "pool" in a broad definition of "billiards", it would be much preferable to rename that subcat. to Category:Pool and billiard halls than to upmerge it.  Upmerging the snooker one would be problematic in even more ways, and would be akin to upmerging some small rugby, Australian rules and American football subcats into the "sideways" parent categories for association football.


 * Riviera (hotel and casino), Las Vegas, has for over 20 years hosted the vast majority of US-based national and international amateur pool tournaments, several of them per year. The fact that the last couple years have seen some changes, with some leagues moving their events to other venues like Bally's, does not magically erase the Riv's historical notability specifically. And the article needs updating; it's likely that some tournaments that left have returned.  The Riv belongs classified as a cue sports venue, just as the Crucible Theatre belongs classified as a snooker one, even if neither are typical of the articles so classified.  For just the VNEA tournament alone, one of several per year and not the largest, the Riv's entire conference/expo space has been taken over, with over 200 pool tables, for a week and a half or so. The Riviera hosts huge pool events so frequently and has been doing so for so long that its gift shops have all sorts of pool-related things in them, not just the usual Vegas stuff.  The venue's categorization as a pool venue is  a trivial association.  League pool players from anywhere in the US at least (and the VNEA event has players from over a dozen countries) could ask each other "Are you going to the Riv this year?" without any need to explain that question.  It's not just "bringing in a table when it is needed and removing it after the competition", as Seyasirt feared; it's a conversion of a large portion of the entire non-casino side of the Riviera operation into a thousands-of-players sports arena, several times per year, year after year.


 * — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Betty Logan. Reasons advanced for deletion can be addressed by clean up.  Merging cats I can't rule out, but I'm not a subject expert so I'll abstain from that.  Hobit (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Occuli etc, where defining. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've clarified the purpose of both this snooker category and its billiards/pool hall half-sibling, and their cue sports venues parent category. Something like the wording I've put into the descriptions on the categories' pages can probably be used to clarify the entire sports venues category tree and several of its siblings. To the extent someone wants to broadly remake how these categories work, that's a much bigger, very different CfD and should be widely advertised at all the sports and gaming and performing arts projects for starters, after it's filed. Or just see WP:BROKE and move on to something much more pressing. I'm going away again. I just got back from one week-long trip and have another one looming.  No further time for tedious WP process-wonking.  Unless people rattle my cage directly, off-wiki, and insist on my involvement, I don't work here any more as my talk page explains. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  12:49, 23 August 2013 (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:Climbing terms

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Climbing terms to Category:Climbing
 * Nominator's rationale: WP articles should be categorized by their topic, not by characteristics of their title (e.g. that the title is a term used in climbing) nor by characteristics of the article text (e.g. that the text uses some climbing terms). Articles like Climbing injuries should not be under Category:Language (a consequence of being under Category:Terminology) as it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Some of the pages in this category are stubs (i.e. little more than dictionary definitions), are poorly worded (see WP:REFER) or mention terminology, but they are not articles about terminology. For info: The glossary is already in a category for glossaries. For info: This category appears to have been used in a misguided (see WP:OC) attempt to keep Category:Climbing clean (i.e. the "terms" category contains those pages that don't fit any other current subcat of Category:Climbing). The essay at User:DexDor/TermCat discusses problems that this form of categorization causes. Note: The name of this category was previously discussed. DexDor (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per well-argued nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2013 (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:European Youth Capitals

 * 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.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting european youth capitals


 * Nominator's rationale: That a city has been awarded a title "for the period of one year, during which it is given the chance to showcase, through a multi-faceted programme, its youth-related cultural, social, political and economic life and development" is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the city. For info: There is a list at European_Youth_Capital.  A similar category for culture was recently deleted and a sport category is currently at CFD. DexDor (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom, this is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the city ... and it's hardly even defining during the year in which the city holds the title. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete on precedent of Olympic cities and capitals of culture. This is in the nature of an award category or performance category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, nondefining. Neutralitytalk 04:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as we have with the other "European x capital" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2013 (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:Football clubs with wrong foundation date on their club badge

 * 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.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting football clubs with wrong foundation date on their club badge


 * Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the football clubs as it's mentioned little, if at all, in the articles in the category (example). Note: If this was categorizing articles about badges (rather than articles about clubs) there might just be some justification for this category. DexDor (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- A trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It's an interesting category. Mooretwin (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting, but trivial. It might make a viable list if it can be shown to meet WP:LISTN, but it is not WP:DEFINING for the club and therefore should not be a category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial, and has the potential to get us into major disputes. I can just see one person saying "that foundation date is wrong", and someone else coming back with 5 paragraphs explaining why it is indeed correct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete similar to Category:People who've lied about their age. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2013 (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:Parliamentary constituencies both current and historic of Hackney

 * 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:Parliamentary constituencies in Hackney.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Parliamentary constituencies both current and historic of Hackney to Category:Parliamentary constituencies of Hackney or Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Hackney ( "in" option added by DexDor (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC) )
 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily verbose category name. We don't use words "both current and historic" in categories like Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a few weak doubts about whether this category should be kept because no other London Borough has a separate sub-cat for its constituencies. However, looking at other boroughs such as Southwark, Lambeth and Brent, it seems that there are enough constituencies to make viable and useful constituency categs for the other boroughs. Once this discussion has agreed a name format, I will create the others (Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Lambeth, Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Southwark etc). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Hackney. The current name is indeed unnecessarily verbose, but the scope is better described by "in" rather than "of".
 * Rename per BHG. We should have similar categories for each London Borough Council.  A single one for London would be too big to be manageable.  I think we have similar ones for Birmingham, Mancester etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2013 (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:Early Childhood

 * 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 deletion WP:CSD, hoax. The editor's deleted article Harold William Fletcher cited his source as "The Killers of St. Louis".Paperback.1994.Bob R. Gillian. I can find no record of such a book. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting early childhood


 * Propose deleting Category:St. Louis Sewage
 * Nominator's rationale: These "categories" appear to have been created by a confused editor. DexDor (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY DELETE - Confused indeed. If you want to speed things up, you can skip CFD and tag them for Speedy Deletion as pages in the incorrect namespace, as explained here: WP:SPEEDY Cgingold (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Both nthese have eben created by a single editor as parts of a biography of a person (forenames not stated) called Fletcher. They appear to be the first contributions of a new editor.  WP:DONOTBITE suggests that they should be merged, articlised and then userified to enable the user to develop them properly.  Whether it should ultimately be restored to article space should be a matter for those who patrol new articles.  No view on merits.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * speedy delete Searching on Edward Galloway doesn't find any trace of a "metro-east mangler", which doesn't get any hits either. This shouldn't be given the benefit of any doubt and should be deleted post haste as a probable attack page. Seyasirt (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge, articalize and userfy per Peterkingiron. This appears to be a good faith attempt to create an article, and we should be kind and helpful and welcoming to new users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (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:Destroyed planets

 * 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:Fictional destroyed planets. While there was some discussion about the name, this is where the target consensus was.  If you have a better name, feel free to discuss in a new nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting destroyed planets


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - There's only one article (about a fictional planet) in this category. For info: the category is itself currently uncategorized. DexDor (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this category intentionally conflates fictional and reality -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional destroyed planets (altering the headnote accordingly). I expect that the topic has been addressed by other SciFi authors.  I doubt we have any direct evidence on actual destroyed planets.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment But does Wikipedia has enough article to warrant a category? I could find only the following two: Alderaan, Krypton (comics). Armbrust The Homunculus 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment we do have a number of articles on real or suspected destroyed planets. Theia_(planet), and some extra-terrestrial solar system articles, other articles about suspected destroyed planet creating the asteroid belt, Vulcan belt. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides Gallifrey, List_of_Doctor_Who_planets says that Jupiter, Skaro and the Moon were destroyed in the series. There's also Tamaran, Romulus (Star Trek), Xindus, Wolf 359 (The Outer Limits) (not to be confused with Wolf 359), Warworld (predictably), and the size and shape of the Death Stars are planet-like. I haven't read When Worlds Collide but the title promises a planetary billiard game. If the category were renamed to fictionally destroyed worlds or round things destroyed in fiction my examples would become suitable. —  rybec   23:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment (CFD nominator). Populating (not with the Moon though) and renaming to "Fictional..." would be fine by me. DexDor (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional destroyed planets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename per Peterkingiron above, apparently Vulcan is destroyed in the new Star Trek movies; Earth in no doubt tons of fictional renderings as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Peterkingiron's suggested name implies that the planets, as well as their destruction, are fictional. Planets destroyed in fiction or Fictionally destroyed planets could include the Earth, although not the Moon or my beloved death stars. — rybec   05:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We never read "fictional" in that way. Fictional modifies planets, not destruction. The article Earth can not be placed in this category. If we had an article about the earth in a work of fiction where it was destroyed that would work though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (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.