Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 19



Category:AfC draft tagging templates

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting afc draft tagging templates


 * Nominator's rationale: This template category is empty. Are there AfC draft tagging templates that ought to be included here? If not, I suggest deletion. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 19:58, 19 April 2018 (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:Ivanovism

 * 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 to Category:Slavic neopaganism. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ivanovism


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently just two articles. An upmerge to Category:Slavic neopaganism would probably be slightly inappropriate, since it is not entirely clear whether this concerns neopaganism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Our article on Ivanovism is a stub, but claims that this is a religious movement based on syncretism. In this case blending ideas from Neopaganism and Christianity. The founder Porfiry Ivanov also had some unorthodox ideas concerning health practices: "Ivanov promoted Detka, a health system that included dousing. He based this system on the belief that it was healthy to remove one's clothing while outdoors in cold weather, in order to become closer to nature. Ivanov also advocated swimming in icy water, a belief that has been applied to the practice of ice swimming." The first thing that comes to mind with that kind of advice is hypothermia. Dimadick (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not as clear whether dousing is a specifically (neo)pagan habit and any further evidence of neopaganism is not given. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/CfD 2018 April 9 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (as nom) Alright, let's then change this to merging to Category:Slavic neopaganism after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Slavic neopaganism. There is no reason to have a category for just the article on the movement and on the founder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2018 (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:Santo Daime

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting santo daime


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there are currently just two articles that link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, it's a Notable religious movement, so has room for expansion for articles on practitioners, any Notable events they hold, any worship centers, etc. It's small at the moment but has a useful role in the category tree for religions. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)'''
 * I added the article for its founder, so that's three articles, and we have a significant redlink for Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, a court battle in the USA. So three articles, plus room for growth. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is a "significant" redlink? Are you planning to write this article? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No obligation on me to do so, but it's a redlink that in context makes total viable sense for a Notability-meeting article. As in it's not just something mentioned in passing that wouldn't meet Notability. So the cat has three articles and potential for more, and the cat itself is the name of a specific religion, so I don't see that it's condemned to eternally be a small cat. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - this is the standard way of collecting the sub-articles of the article Santo Daime. Oculi (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 19 April 2018 (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 associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

 * 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 15:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people associated with russian interference in the 2016 united states elections


 * Nominator's rationale: The only people known to be associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections are the dozen or so Russian individuals and groups that have been indicted by the justice department for allegedly interfering in the election. Anything else is pure speculation at this point. And per WP:OCASSOC and WP:RECENTISM. Coldcreation (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * keep category is properly populated; no reason at all to delete Hmains (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator has unique definitions of "association" and "speculation" that are not shared by the rest of the English-speaking community. If individual memberships are controversial, they have talk pages. — swpb T go beyond 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My definitions are mainstream. Thanks. Coldcreation (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if your definitions are mainstream that is not a valid reason for deletion of the whole category, but rather just removing such people with talkpage discussion. However reasons like WP:RECENTISM and WP:OCASSOC are valid. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but recommend that the an explanation of what is meant by "associated with" be added to the page to avoid future conflict.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:OCASSOC is the fact that "associated with" can mean anything, an explanation will not help because it will remain unavoidably vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are still plenty of "People associated with" categories, and providing a definition does not seem to be an insurmountable problem.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please come up with a definition for this category that encompasses all current content but replaces "associated with" with something more specific. And if you succeed in this, as a follow-up question, why wouldn't we then rename the category in accordance with the terminology used in this new definition? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural oppose as Category:Russians associated with interference in the 2016 United States elections hasn't been considered. However, this clearly isn't defining for Nigel Farage (especially from a UK perspective) so unless these categories can be tightened they should be deleted. In general people should be categorised for being an American politician, Russian diplomat or whatever - involvement in any particular event/controversy does not need categorization (article text/links is sufficent). DexDor(talk) 19:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Associating" living people with a crime is against WP:BLPCRIME. FallingGravity 00:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What crime? What law has been broken?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The implication is that interfering in United States elections is perceived as treasonous, anti-American. Crime or not, associating someone (who may not be guilty) is borderline slanderous. By association, it is suggests the person has committed (or is accused of) a crime, without having been convicted of one. WP:BLPCRIME states it similarly. Coldcreation (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME is about people being accused of a crime without being convicted of one. Un-American is not criminal.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Treason is a crime. Arguably, being associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections could be considered treasonous. Congress passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition. Coldcreation (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A person 'associated' with interfering in U.S. elections could also be charged with carrying out a massive fraud against the American government and conspiring to obstruct enforcement of federal laws. So WP:BLPCRIME does apply here. Coldcreation (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that treason applies here, as Russia is not an enemy country. But you have a good point. Given that people have been convicted of tax avoidance, money laundering, perjury etc, it does seem that a reader might infer that membership of the category means that someone is a rogue. Accordingly, I have struck my !vote  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted from CfD 2018 April 10 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rogue or not, there are potential criminal implications with being "associated" with Russians who interfered in the 2016 elections. Several Russians have been indicted for interfering in the elections, with charges of 'conspiracy to defraud the United States', wire fraud, and bank fraud, among other charges. Aside from Russian nationals, no one listed in this category has been accused of or charged with being associated with such criminal behavior. Being 'associated' implies complicity, suggesting the person has committed (or is accused of having committed) a crime, without the presumption of innocence. For this reason WP:BLPCRIME applies, along with WP:RECENTISM and WP:OCASSOC (per above). Coldcreation (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The crime(s) I'm referring to is cyber attacks on U.S. institutions with the intent to interfere with the election process. FallingGravity 07:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, until we standardize naming and nominate all these need to be somehow grouped, and "people associated with..." seems to be the terminology most commonly applied; see: Category:people by scandal, a parent to the one nominated, and as evidenced by what's in that category not all scandals are crimes and those "associated with" the scandal can include victims, witnesses, "good guys", "bad guys" etc. so while the wording isn't ideal I cannot come up with a better one for a long version title: for shorter scandals, Category:Name of scandal people (e.g., Category:Enron people‎) or Category:People of the scandal name (e.g., Category:People of the Holocaust) may work; and just upmerging the folks to the higher specific category Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections would leave it like Category:Iran–Contra affair filled with people, events, and miscellany without further organization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather, it should be deleted for now, until standardization, much as Category:Trump associates associated with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2018 (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:French anti-cult organizations and individuals

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator (WP:CSK). -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:French anti-cult organizations and individuals to Category:Cults in France
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles, and there is no particular reason to diffuse parent Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals specifically to French nationality while it hasn't been diffused by any other nationality. There is also no need to merge the content directly to Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals since the articles are already in one of the two other subcategories of that one. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Though it is a somewhat small category, it does not fit well with the content of the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The target is a hodgepodge anyway, for example Cult of Reason is unrelated to Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France. If not merged to Category:Cults in France, the nomination changes in delete. Again, the organizations and individuals are in appropriate subcategories already. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The target has been nominated as well, see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_9. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep" "There is no particular reason to diffuse parent Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals specifically to French nationality while it hasn't been diffused by any other nationality" Thats's a bad reason: one can create similar categories for other countries. Apokrif (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not encourage mixing individuals and organizations for any other country either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? There are many country-specific categories already. Apokrif (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Other country categories directly mixing up individuals and organizations? Which one(s)? They probably need to be split or merged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted from CFD 2018 April 6 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: bot responses say "keep", but the keep !voters did not identify any other categories which combine individuals and organizations, so at this point the balance looks like "no consensus".

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn as the merge target has meanwhile been deleted in another discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2018 (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:International partnerships

 * 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: split to suitable categories ( might be another relevant hierarchy?) and then delete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting international partnerships


 * Nominator's rationale: Does not fit into Category:Partnerships and specifically says it is not for organisations. The articles in the category mostly don't fit the definition. Very hard to see how it is defining or useful. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted from CFD 2018 April 6 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It is not about partnerships but about networks. Split to Category:Professional networks or Category:Social networks as appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 19 April 2018 (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:Flagship Program

 * 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. I have put four of the members into Category:Proposed NASA space probes to ensure that they remain in the NASA category hierarchy. If they are not space probes, please correct this. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Flagship Program to Category:Large Strategic Science Missions
 * Nominator's rationale: "Flagship Program" is a misnomer, and no such NASA program actually exists. For this reason, I also recently moved the page Flagship Program to Large Strategic Science Missions. NilsTycho (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted from CFD 2018 April 3 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, correct me if I'm wrong but based on the main article and on the articles in the category it seems like this is subjective classification, suitable for an article but not suitable for a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Support - since the name of the program (and article) changed, the name of its corresponding category should change too. It would be confusing if we leave the old category name; we have to follow through with the update. Edited: Flagship/Large Missions is not a program, just a statement of the missions' high cost and expected longevity. Yes, delete this category.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete based on my earlier comment and I haven't been corrected so far. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about changing/moving the category name to "NASA Flagship missions". BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't change anything if there are no objective criteria which missions would classify for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors do not classify these missions as Flagship, NASA does. We just state which ones are Flagships, whatever the criteria used NASA to reach their decision. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the discussion so far was that NASA doesn't classify missions as Flagship missions. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a program but they have flown several as Flagship and the Europa Clipper is the next Flagship. However, I agree in that NASA is struggling to define what the parameters of a Flagship mission should be: . Yes, I think that deleting this category is better than renaming it "Flagship missions" or "Large Strategic Science Missions". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2018 (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:French festivals
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 by merging to Category:French-language culture, without prejudice to the creation of Category:French-language festivals if sufficient further content can be found. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting french festivals


 * Nominator's rationale: Misleadingly named category. The actual content here is a single subcategory for, with the sole article in that subcategory being an event that took place in Lebanon. So this sounds like a duplication of , and in fact is much likelier to be misused that way than the way it's actually intended -- but the intention was evidently to categorize festivals of French cuture, regardless of where in the world they're physically held. But I don't really see that as a useful point of categorization, either -- even if it were renamed to make its intent clearer, I still see it as carrying a significant risk of becoming misused to simply hold every festival that takes place in a francophone country at all (e.g. every single festival in Quebec that focuses on francophone film or music or theatre, and on and so forth.) Even the Cultural events at the 2009 Jeux de la Francophonie, the one thing actually filed here, weren't a "festival of French culture" per se, but merely an international cultural festival where most of the culture took place in the French language solely by virtue of being the cultural festival of an event whose participating countries were francophone. And if the rationale for inclusion is that convoluted, then it's not WP:DEFINING. Bearcat (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced of the lack of definingness, after all the article is about a part of the Jeux de la Francophonie. Initially I considered renaming the category to Category:French-language festivals as a subcategory of Category:French-language culture. However, given the very limited amount of content in the category and the subcategory, deletion of both may be fine for now, provided the content of the subcategory (just one article, in this case) is added to Category:French-language culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have inserted "and the subcategory" & "of both" in the previous comment, for clarification. Unless there is a specific objection, I would rather add the subcategory to the nomination, in order to have it merged per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support rename to French-language festivals, to sit within Category:French-language culture. SFB 20:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename to French-language festivals, but really delete, as small & unlikely to grow adequately. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2018 (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.

New York GAA
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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: rename as nominated (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * Category:New York (state) hurlers to Category:New York hurlers
 * Category:New York (state) Gaelic footballers to Category:New York Gaelic footballers


 * Nominator's rationale: these 2 categories were speedily renamed in August 2017 to add the "(state)" disambiguator, nominated by . I am sure that this was well-intended, but it was mistaken.
 * The actual scope of the category is that of the New York GAA, an ""overseas county" of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) whose territory is neither New York City nor New York (state), but is roughly equivalent to the New York metropolitan area (see https://www.linkedin.com/company/new-york-gaa). The concept of an area outisde Ireland being treated as Irish county may seem odd, but it is how the GAA organises its activities in the Irish diaspora, and en.wp's terminology should respect the actual structures in use and not misrepresent the scope of the category.
 * This also fits the convention of Category:Hurlers by county in Ireland, which is "[barecountyname] hurlers", e.g. Category:Kilkenny hurlers.
 * Same with Category:Gaelic footballers by county in Ireland, which uses "[bare countyname] Gaelic footballers", e.g. Category:Carlow Gaelic footballers. In this context New York refers to the GAA county, so it should follow the same convention. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Alt 1 The nom has explained that the entity has nothing to do with either the city or the state of New York. The same is true of London GAA. Even within Ireland there is an entity called Derry GAA, although no such administrative county exists (the nearest might be County Londonderry). There is also the instance of a club in Ireland called Ballaghaderreen GAA which, while located in the administrative county of County Roscommon, is affiliated to the GAA County Board of Mayo GAA. It's clear then that the organisation of this private association has very little to do with administrative counties in Ireland today, even if that was how the association grew in its early history. So we should cease the pretense that the two are synonymous. Instead, it's more helpful to the wider community that a distinction be drawn between the two entities (administrative counties of the state / quirky organisational structure of a private association). I suggest that this, and all GAA entities at the level of "county" carry the "GAA" disambiguator. In this case, my alternative suggestion is Category:New York GAA hurlers and Category:New York GAA Gaelic footballers or possibly Category:New York GAA footballers since it can be taken as given that the GAA does not participate in association football. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have advised WikiProject Gaelic games that a discussion relevant to their project is taking place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have advised Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York (state) that a discussion relevant to their project is taking place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that notification because its non-neutrality breaches WP:CANVASS. WP:NY has already been notified via the article alerts system. If you want to add a note on the talk page please cfd-notify to create a neutral message which describes the proposed action rather than your view on its merits. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Much obliged to BHG for the advice on the notification template. A font of knowledge as always. But she could do with brushing up on WP:Goodfaith. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LL, after any years of your personal attacks on me and other editors at CfD, any remaining assumption I had of your good faith was demolished by you in February.-- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point in you requesting deletion of a comment, and my deleting that comment if you're going to resurrect it later. Can it be for petty point scoring? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my comments in the longer thread below, can we cut out the in-fighting and just let people discuss the categories? Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Alt A simple reversion doesn't address the underlying ambiguity of what "New York" refers to. If the whole tree is about areas defined by the GAA rather than the standard areas, then I'd suggest this also be replicated across the rest of the categories too to prevent confusion. SFB 20:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also support for nom as proposed to allow alignment with rest of the structure, leaving open a later option for the broader question on ambiguity in the tree as a whole. SFB 00:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply the addition of "GAA" to the name is a tautology which does precisely nothing to clarify the scope, because any hurler or Gaelic footballer is by definition a member of the GAA.  It simply breaks a naming convention to add pointless verbosity. Laurel Lodged's post is almost entirely about non-New York issues wants.  LL is using this discussion as a hook to push their desire that all GAA entities at the level of "county" carry the "GAA" disambiguator ... but even leaving aside the fact that it adds zero disambiguation, the way to change a naming convention is to nominate all the relevant categories together to achieve a consistent outcome.  Opportunistically hijacking a narrower discussion like this simply creates pointless inconsistency which confuses readers and disrupts editors who rely on consistent titles when categorising articles.
 * Note that Laurel Lodged appears to have some sort of dislike of the GAA. In a comment in a category navigation discussion, LL described the GAA's structure as potty. Elsewhere on the same page LL wanted to add similar pointless verbosity to a navbox, where it was opposed by both  and.
 * Oh, and Laurel Lodged's cryptically-worded notification to WT:GAA was superfluous. I had notified the project 3 days earlier, immediately after the nomination was made. (I had also added the GAA project banner to Category:New York (state) Gaelic footballers to trigger its inclusion by bot in WP:WikiProject Gaelic games/Article alerts)
 * It is also notable that LL's post here came after the discussion had been open nearly 3 days, but only 1 hour after I had procedurally opposed a CfD nomination by LL which replicated a procedural flaw in a similar LL nomination some weeks earlier ... and that conspicuously coincidental timing makes me question the good faith of LL's sudden desire to create inconsistency in GAA category names. :Note that LL has a long history of personal attacks against me wrt to CfD matters, such as  in February 2018.  In this  case LL's personal animosity appears to have combined with LL's apparent disdain for the the GAA. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't contribute to GAA topics, so I don't have much of a stake in the outcome. As an outside opinion, the addition of GAA would clarify that the category refers to a sports registration and not a location. I see the same issue with things like Category:Yorkshire cricketers, but I know the cricket folks like them that way so I'm obliged to find more productive things to do { SFB 02:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see that you would like the addition of GAA would clarify that the category refers to a sports registration and not a location, but in practice it doesn't do so, because it is unclear whether your preferred new title should be read as "(New York GAA) hurlers" or "New York (GAA hurlers)". Either is a reasonable reading, so the scope is still wide open.  I am unpersuaded that the perceived ambiguity is an issue in practice, but if you did want to resolve it then only clear resolution would be a more verbose descriptive title, maybe such as "Hurlers for New York GAA teams" ... and there is still the consistency issue.   When editors perceive a flaw in a naming convention, they should propose changing the convention rather than creating one-off exceptions.  -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is the nominator that has exposed the flaw in the naming convention (i.e. that administrative geographies are not synonymous with club organisation names). Having identified the problem, the nom ought to have gone to whole way. To quote the nom from another discussion: "All I am asking is that you bring your proposal to CfD when you have finished the preparatory work, rather than bringing these incomplete nominations. (And, no it is not my responsibility to do the work for you).". Might I suggest that she withdraw this nom and propose a whole scheme for disambiguating states/cities/counties from GAA "counties"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As above, I do not share your view that the wider naming convention is flawed. That is your view, and  you are entitled to hold it no matter how misguided I think you are in both your claim that there is a problem and in your ill-considered belief that adding the word single "GAA" would resolve it ... but since it is you who holds that view it is up to you to propose the wider change you want to achieve. Your out-of-context quote of my words in another discussion is just point-scoring misrepresentation, because in this nomination I am proposing upholding a naming convention; my proposal here does amount to a complete nomination.
 * In that other discussion you chose to make a fourth successive incomplete nomination on the same principle applied to the same set of articles, simply because you say it is "a lot of work" to do the job properly. You you were v clear there that you believed it was my job to devote my time to pursuing your objective, and you bring the same bizarre notion to this discussion.[[
 * Such misrepresentation and game-playing reinforces my suspicion that you are yet again approaching a CfD discussion as some sort of revenge/mischief game rather than as genuine problem-solving. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of misrepresentation, you forgot to acknowledge that 2 out of the 4 nominations that you mention above resulted in them being re-named as nominated. So much for mischief then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This point-scoring competition (I would use a different phrase if you were both men) has gone way off topic, and can only be confusing to the closer. I suggest (1) that it stop forthwith, and (2) that it be hatted immediately below the first sentence, the one beginning "the addition of GAA to the name is a tautology...". Scolaire (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A timely and constructive intervention. Many thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * my second para above is crucial to the substantive discussion. My point that the way to change a naming convention is to nominate all the relevant categories together is a key part of what a closer should consider. So please do not hat the first 2 paras. - Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support original proposal; oppose Alt 1. The original proposal is consistent with other GAA categories, e.g. Category:Cork hurlers doesn't distinguish between County Cork and Cork City, and in any case there is no corresponding Category:New York (city) hurlers. As points out, this is consistent with cricket categories as well as Gaelic. The only good reason not to have consistency is ambiguity, and both "hurlers" and "Gaelic footballers" are unambiguous. The addition of "GAA" adds clutter without adding clarity, and makes the category name more confusing rather than less.  Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since mentions that this ties in with a category navigation discussion, I am pinging the others who are involved in that discussion:  care to comment?.  Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Of course it doesn't distinguish between County Cork and Cork City. It's not supposed to. That's the very point. One tree structure is for demarcating the boundaries of first-level units of local government (2 entities in the case of the wider Cork area) while the other is for demarcating the boundaries of a private association. Take Cliodhna O'Connor for example; she plays for Dublin GAA County Board but lives in the county of Fingal. Hence her categories are Category:Dublin ladies' Gaelic footballers and Category:Sportspeople from Fingal. So this proves the complete divorce between the two entities. She is not alone. All it takes is one exception to the rule to disprove the entire rule. Hence the need for a disambiguator. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. LL still doesn't grasp that a) "Foo GAA ladies' Gaelic footballers" doesn't disambiguate anything, and b) people from Fingal or Dalkey or Castleknock are subsets of people from County Dublin, not some sort of contradiction, and c) that there is nothing to disambiguate. Add extra words to Category:Dublin ladies' Gaelic footballers will in no way change its scope. It's just a status declaration to mark LL'ss obsession with the fact that OMG THE GAA USES COUNTY NAMES EVEN THO IT IS NOT AN EMANTION OF THE STATE OMG. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it ironic that BHG indulges in such verbosity in defence of a position that boils down to a desire to avoid verbosity? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we get it, you don't like each other. Now stop. Scolaire (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support original proposal; oppose Alt 1. BHG's proposal works and is consistent with other GAA cats. KISS. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support original proposal PER BHG . Standard naming convention Gnevin (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2018 (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:Monasteries in Scotland by order
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 8. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting monasteries in scotland by order


 * Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Austria by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Belgium by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in France by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Germany by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Italy by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Monasteries in Spain by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Christian monasteries in Norway by order
 * Propose deleting Category:Christian monasteries in Portugal by order‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Christian monasteries in the United States by order‎
 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, Category:Monasteries in Scotland by order is a duplicate of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Scotland. Similarly for the other categories. Note that they are subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order (my italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. While at it, would also propose letting go of the depricated "Roman" disambiguator in the final destinations per WP:CONSISTENCY with Catholic religious order, and Category:Catholic orders and societies. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and instead delete the "Roman Catholic" ones, due to potential Anglican/Episcopalian foundations (not so much outwith Scotland – but we might as well have consistency everywhere).--<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-2deg);-moz-transform:rotate(-2deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-2deg);-o-transform:rotate(-2deg); font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Lucida Calligraphy, Bradley Hand ITC, cursive; font-size:90%;">Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't quite see the logic of that for the above countries. Deletion of the Roman Catholic categories would remove the content from Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by country but keep them in Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order. That sounds pretty inconsistent as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * support I don't think there's any place where there are enough Anglican establishments to support a break out by country and order, so the "by order" cats only make sense in the (Roman) Catholic substructure, and we already have the right parent cats for that. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- For Scotland, I would suggest Category:Pre-reformation monasteries in Scotland by order. purging any later ones; presumably likewise Norway.  In Germany, it may be necessary to split Catholic and Lutheran orders.  Austria, Belgium France Spain and Italy are majority Catholic countries so that a RC category is redundant.  I have no clear view on US, but suspect Category:Catholic monasteries in the United States by order‎ would be a useful target.  Splitting them by order is useful, but we do not need multiple layers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A rename of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Scotland can be discussed in a fresh nomination. I am not aware of the existence of Lutheran monasteries and for sure we do not have categories by order for them. Diffusing the US category shouldn't be part of this discussion either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to this nomination seems incomplete; should it be relisted with at least Category:Monasteries in the United Kingdom by order for merging to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in the United Kingdom, Category:Monasteries in Wales by order to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Wales, and Category:Monasteries in England by order for renaming to Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in England? – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably yes. There may have been a reason why I omitted these from the nomination, but I cannot recall why. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2018 (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:Neighbourhoods in Cochrane District
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" 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. I will merge the contents initially to Category:Neighbourhoods in Ontario (which contains two out of three already) and to Category:Populated places in Cochrane District etc. If for some reason this is unhelpful, feel free to change it again. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting neighbourhoods in cochrane district


 * Propose deleting neighbourhoods in algoma district


 * Propose deleting neighbourhoolds in nipissing district


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary WP:SMALLCATs for neighbourhoods in individual Ontario census divisions. (If you don't know what the term "census divisions" means, you'll get close enough by just reading it as "counties" — not that that's exactly accurate, but the subtle distinction between a county and a district is completely irrelevant in this particular context.) In each case, the category's only content is a single merged list of the neighbourhoods in one city, because these cities' neighbourhoods aren't really referenceable to anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GEOLAND as standalone topics (in turn opening up the question of whether these lists are even keepable at all, but that's outside the purview of CFD to determine.) But in each case, the city in question is its census division's only community that's large enough to really have distinct named "neighbourhoods" at all, so none of these has any real path to expandability either. And even if these somehow got kept for some unfathomable reason, the Nipissing category would still have to be corrected for the absurd spelling error in "neighbourhoolds". Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Question, shouldn't they be merged to Category:Neighbourhoods in Ontario? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere. My question would be whether these divisions are used other than for censuses.  I also note that there seem to be more siblings form the three nominated.  However, I do not know Ontario and am commenting on theory not from knowledge.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ontario's system of census divisions is complicated: in Southern Ontario, the census divisions are counties, regional municipalities or independent cities, which means there's an actual political function to them — but in Northern Ontario, the census divisions are districts, which are purely arbitrary geographic divisions that don't have county-type governments of their own but just serve to group census statistics and as jurisdictional divisions for the locations of provincial government offices (e.g. the question of whether you have to go to Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Timmins or Thunder Bay to renew your license plates). So we use the term "census divisions" as the umbrella term for all of them, because the significant variance in form and function means it's the only term that's inclusive of all the different types — but whether a census division is anything more than just a grouping of statistics or not depends which part of the province the division is in. These are all districts in Northern Ontario, however, which means this is the part of the province where a census division is just a random line rather than a political entity. And while it's true that there are some subcategories for other census divisions, those all contain actual standalone articles about individual neighbourhoods rather than just a single merged list. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (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.