Category:People executed by France by hanging, drawing and quartering[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: France did not "hang, draw and quarter" anyone. The sentence was used only in England and later the UK. Parrotof Doom 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question So where do the current contents actually belong?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The three articles that are currently in the category all include people that were in fact asserted to have been executed by France by those means. If it turns out that they were actually executed by other means, they should be moved to those other categories (with proper edits to the articles, of course), and the category can then be deleted. If they were actually executed by hanging, drawing, and quartering, then the category should stay. --Nlu (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – hanging is not mentioned in any of the 3 articles. 2 were subjected to drawing and quartering, the other was quartered and beheaded. (2 were unsuccessfully quartered, apparently due to insufficient horse-power. Halved perhaps.) I've added a 4th, François Ravaillac, who belongs with the other 3. There is the more general Category:People executed by dismemberment. Oculi (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Jerry Pepsi. The traditional French ignominously measn of execution was for a man to be broken at the wheel. I checked two articles: one referred to quartering, but not hanging. Dismemnberment (or quartering is incompatible with life (at least for more than a couple of minutes. We might have "People executed and dismembered", but my preference would not be to have any split by method of execution. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 was going to upmerge, but since this is now empty... Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We split women out when either a-they really have unique roles (nuns are the quickest things that comes to mind, nuns are neither monks nor priests, the offices are clearly split by gender), 2- women are clearly the exception (women senators come to mind, something like 0.3% of all people who have been US senators have been women) and 3- gender is a controlling part of the occupation (women writers and actresses come to mind). 3 is actially a lot like 1, just not quite as much so. I do not think any of these three criteria are met here, so I think we should delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think we should start categorizing by employment-by-org + gender. Other similar categorizes have been created by the same user and are already on the chopping block so why they created yet another one is boggling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:Cat gender, "a gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic". I see no evidence that this is the case here. Note that the creator of this category is User:Ottawahitech, who also created several other similar categories, all of which have been discussed at CFD:
It is sad that the Nov 27 CFD has remained open for so long, but is clear that there is no support for keeping this sort of category. User:Ottawahitech was warned at the November 27 CFD not to continue creating categories which are likely to be deleted, so it is frustrating to see that this category was created by Ottawahitech only a few days ago. There is a WP:IDHT problem here, which is getting into territory of tendentious and disruptive editing. I hope that the creator will draw back before sanctions are imposed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary per arguments above. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:CNBC people, or possibly a wider upmerge. This is not an area where women are an unusual class of employees. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Olympic athletes who wrestled professionally[edit]
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. A finely balanced debate, but not evidently a consensus to delete, and there does seem something of a special case here given the particular nature of professional wrestling vs. professional [other sports]. However, there is some potential for confusion identified in the naming due to 'athletes' when that was not really the intended intersect, and indeed that appears to be the source of at least one delete. Therefore, I will rename this to Category:Professional wrestlers who competed in the Olympics. -Splash - tk 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorized intersection. Many olympians go on to compete professionally (or are already doing so during their Olympic appearance - see many tennis/basketball players for example) I don't see why it is especially of note that certain wrestlers have wrestled professionally. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic boxing and wrestling still require pure amateurs. InedibleHulk(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan, from your nomination's comparison to tennis and basketball, I'm not sure if you understand that professional wrestling is a scripted combat sport requiring not only wrestling skills but also in a sense, acting, as wrestlers are scripted to play characters as well. It's not the same as Federer playing in the Australian Open after the Olympics. Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid most intersection categories, this is not a needed one. What next Category:Olympic athletes who played baseball professionally, etc. This is a bad idea. Additionally are we using "athlete" in the limited British sense or the broader American sense? Is someone who did swimming at the Olympics and then became a pro wrestler eligible?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is professional baseball a scripted combat sport? There's no comparison. There's not a single swimmer in the category, and the large majority are former amateur wrestlers. Judo and weightlifting backgrounds do add to the "combat sport" aspect of professional wrestling as well. The rest are the absolute minority - therefore I don't really object to them being there. To cut anything than "amateur wrestling" would infringe on judo, weightlifting and possibly any other sport related to "combat" does not seem like a solution to me. Since the rest are an absolute minority, I'd let them stay as a small evil. Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wait are you saying professional wrestlers are acting? No way. Mind ... Blown... Seriously, I am well aware that pro wrestlers ham it up. Who cares? And I realize that pro wrestling is different than Olympic wrestling. Again, so what? Why is this intersection notable? We don't have 'Olympic runners who became professional baseball players' - so why should this cat exist?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my keep/move vote below. This category is targeted at pro wrestlers, not Olympians, because being ex-Olympians affects how a pro wrestling is promoted, in terms of his character, how he wrestles, and what level of success he is scripted to have coming from a "prestigious" Olympic background. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an irrelevant intersection between 2 unrelated attributes (athletics and wrestling). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Track and Field, the category is referring to Olympian athletes as a whole. I would say that wrestling, whether Greco-Roman or freestyle, is the fundamental basis of the scripted combat sport that is professional wrestling, so it is hardly an irrelevant intersection. Also since we've had judokas who became professional wrestlers with their background in judo contributing to the combat sport aspect we shouldn't just limit it to amateur wrestlers either. Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While the olympics are supposed to be amateur, most participants are professional. I am not sure whehter wrestling has ever been an Olympic sport, but performing in wrestling and anotehr sport is a trival instersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While the olympics are supposed to be amateur, most participants are professional." - what does this even mean? Are you referring to professional wrestling? I'm sure a lot of Olympians play professionally... but this is definitely not the case for wrestling. Most Olympian wrestlers are not professional wrestlers. Otherwise there would surely be more than a thousand people from over the years in this category instead of less than thirty. Starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is not the same case since in many other sports the athletes are already profession when they entered the Olympics. The nominator mentioned how most tennis and basketball players are do do become professional but the main difference many have played for Professional leagues first (ie NBA for basketball and while not mentioned many players in the NHL play Olympic hockey) The difference here is that few if any professional wrestlers were part of the WWE or TNA etc before they were in the Olympics. Also, as mentioned in several cases the wrestlers past Olympic history often plays a significant roll in the development of their characters.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the perspective of a professional wrestling articles editor, this category is useful for identifying professional wrestlers with a legitimate sporting background. Note that many of the individuals listed in the category incorporated their athletic backgrounds into their professional wrestling style, in some cases quite influentially (for example, Kurt Angle's freestyle wrestling background contributed to an increase in "mat-based" professional wrestling in the 2000s). A more useful title for the category would perhaps be "Professional wrestlers who competed in the Olympics" or something along those lines. McPhail (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't some coincidental silliness like "NFL players who play guitar" or "Unmustachioed Iranian politicians". The Olympics are directly relevant to the pro wrestling career. In how it leads to it, the way the wrestler is booked, and the actual techniques. An elite-level wrestler executes a fake suplex or takedown differently from the average Crusher Joe. Maybe change "athletes" to "combatants", though, to include the judokas. Swimmers and archers needn't apply, if they exist. InedibleHulk(talk) 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Professional wrestlers who competed in the Olympics". The subject here is professional wrestlers, not Olympians. The people in this category started out as Olympians before moving on to professional wrestling, with their Olympic backgrounds acting as a legitimate sporting background, as McPhail says above. Wrestlers are scripted to play a character, and a legitimate sporting background is a significant part of the character and resultant storylines (Kurt Angle, an Olympic gold medalist in wrestling was scripted to win eleven world championships in WWE and TNA) and also how he wrestles. (Mark Henry, an Olympian weightlifter, scripted to play the "World's Strongest Man" who easily throws people around) Starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, Mark Henry. I guess "combatant" wouldn't work. Your title's good. But the subject is both Olympians and pro wrestlers, so the current one isn't exactly bad. InedibleHulk(talk) 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "athletes" will be confused with Athletics (sport). BrownHairedGirl's comment seems to indicate such errors in understanding do happen. Starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. We say "Olympic athletes". Regardless how one feels about athleticism in the pro wrestling sense, there's no reasonably denying the Olympics is athletics, in that article's sense. But like I said, the new title is also good. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was wrong. Should have read the article first. Hadn't realized people split hairs that way. Long live the new title! InedibleHulk(talk) 21:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As McPhail points out, these intersecting topics aren't as random as it may appear to one with little knowledge of Professional Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Clearly is a defining characteristic of professional wrestlers as explained above. It is not nearly as a frequent occurrence as the delete voters make it out to be. STATicmessage me! 16:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there would have been far more that 29 if that was the case.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just because something is rare doesn't make it defining. Also, it sounds like you're describing a subset of professional wrestlers, not a subset of Olympians. If that's the case, then why not have professional wrestlers who competed in the interamerican games, or professional wrestlers who competed in national-level wrestling competition? What is it about Olympics + professional wrestlers, and only that sport, which is special and defining - and especially what makes this intersection defining? There is no issue with categorizing them as both Olympians and professional wrestlers but we need more evidence that the intersection is a special and defining class in order to create a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a subset of professional wrestlers is exactly what we are talking about. As for the interamerican games or the national-level wrestling competition, come on, which of these has any comparison with recognizability and prestige of the Olympic branding? Not everyone who watches professional wrestling knows about amateur wrestling, but surely a hell lot more would know about the Olympics. NCAA Division I Wrestling Champion... say what? Competed in the Olympics, even better - a medallist at that... now you're talking. For the below, I'm not familiar with lists, sorry. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list is just, well, a list. See List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_boxing for example. But you're moving the goalposts now. I've pointed to RS below that discuss, specifically, the impact that amateur wrestling techniques had on their careers - the same assertion your side made for Olympic wrestling techniques. Now you're saying "No, amateur wrestling, even NCAA championships, doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is Olympics + pro wrestling" - why? Based on what RS? Wasn't the claim that it was the techniques of wrestling that made a difference? Now you're saying it's the recognizability of the past athletic experience in the minds of the spectators that matters. Plus, we have guys who were scullers in this category, and people arguing keep above saying we need to filter out swimmers. Other RS talk about the linkage between football, players like the Rock, and how the intense physicality and travel schedule all helped in adopting to pro wrestling. All of this indicates that the keep side doesn't have a clear agreed consensus, and that the category is not workable, because you can't even agree on why it should be kept, nor on the inclusion criteria, nor what makes the Olympics so special as an intersection with pro wrestling. delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for example, look at Baron von Raschke - he competed as an amateur in a number of events, winning national championships and eventually qualifying for the Olympic team. But that was one year - his amateur wresting career spanned a much longer period. Why is the Olympics called out here? Are you saying that a guy who won the national title in Greco-roman wrestling then brought those skills to pro wrestling even if he never went to the Olympics is somehow leveraging less of his athletic abilities? This doesn't work as a category because it's not defining - a better idea would be a list, where you can identify notable moments in the amateur careers of people who became pro wrestlers and sources that explain why that amateur experience made a difference. A binary 'x competed in Olympics then became pro' IN vs 'y competed in nationals then became pro' OUT doesn't make sense nor does it jibe with your claims above that amateur wrestling + pro wrestling has a major influence - they don't teach you special wrestling moves only at the Olympics. A list is a much better solution here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this list provides further evidence that this category is unworkable. [1] - the bulk of wrestlers on this list were competing at a high amateur level, but most went pro before ever trying for the Olympics. But you can't have 'Amateur wrestlers who turned pro' as that would leave out football players, of which there are many, as well as other sports, so then you'd get to a category like 'Pro wrestlers who competed in various sports as amateurs' and at that level you're probably talking about the majority of pro wrestlers overall. The Olympics as a cutoff is arbitrary, and lists in the real world consider NCAA champion wrestlers equally significant for the amateur career and how it influenced their pro career. Listify this...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say many of the commenters here have failed to realize that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and have failed to realize that athlete has a very different meaning in some forms of English. I also have to say, no one has really addressed why this is a specificly working category. If we have this, why not many other overlap categories. For examp,le, why not Category:Olympic athletes who boxed professionally. On a side note, boxing and wrestling are the two remaining Olympic sports that have strict amateur rules. Wrestling is very much an Olympic sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a CFD a while back regarding categorizing professional wrestlers by generation. Family relations are important to wrestling fans because the business has sold them on the concept. The same applies to wrestlers who come from an Olympic background. I'll go back a little further than others in this thread. While Verne Gagne was building the American Wrestling Association into a national pretender, he was also providing significant financial and in-kind support to the U.S. Olympic Committee. A major part of Gagne's legacy revolves around the scores of young wrestlers he trained during the 1970s and 1980s. Two of the first of these were Ken Patera and Chris Taylor, both of whom enjoyed some degree of mainstream name recognition by virtue of appearing at the 1972 Olympics. This is where it appears to begin as a formal hype point. Not only could he promote their legitimate sporting backgrounds to their benefit, he could also use those backgrounds to promote his own product. This is perhaps important as by around 1972, pro wrestling was firmly in its wilderness years in terms of mainstream recognition, yet Gagne was working on greater legitimacy for his "lowbrow" profession through a film, semi-regular "big shows" at Comiskey Park and Soldier Field, his continuing Olympic association and other things.
Fast forward a few years. I don't know if anyone else was around during Patera's heyday as a wrestler, but it may help to point something out here. The fact that Patera competed at the Olympics was mentioned nearly constantly and featured rather prominently in his wrestling style. The fact that his older brother was head coach of the Seattle Seahawks was equally as interesting, but since it had nothing to do with furthering wrestling storylines, it was rarely mentioned. Coverage of pro wrestling in Japan has always taken a more serious tone than anywhere else. Japanese wrestlers who competed in the Olympics and had success as pro wrestlers, such as Hiroshi Hase and Yoshiaki Yatsu, were written about in the same elite regard already seen in this thread referencing Kurt Angle and Mark Henry. Yatsu wrestled in the Mid-South promotion in 1982, was featured and promoted as legit. This despite the fact that his name and background meant nothing to American audiences, and Bill Watts is supposedly this virulent racist. To the latter, Watts promoted to fans who grew up watching Danny Hodge wrestle no-bullshit matches for as long as ninety minutes night after night, and always appreciated someone with that kind of background, regardless of race. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename per Officer (The Salvation Army). The word "ministers" would be better than "clergy", but "officers" is the term used within the Salvation Army. – FayenaticLondon 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename we generally try to use the terms of the organization in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Best to use the term the organisation itself uses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
That parent is up for speedy renaming form Clergy to Ministers, which should be settled before this closes. – FayenaticLondon 23:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "ministers" or "clergy", depending on outcomes for related categories. However, I'm wondering about the validity of the parent Category:African-American Methodists. AFAIK, there is no "African-American Methodist" denomination. Relevant African-American denominations include (but aren't limited to) African-American Methodist Episcopal (AME), African-American Methodist Episcopal Zion, and Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME, formerly Colored Methodist Episcopal). Also, there undoubtedly have been notable African-American ministers in white-dominated Methodist denominations, such as the United Methodists. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That has been done as well, in the sibling category Category:Clergy of historically African-American Christian denominations, and if some of the Methodist categories are substantially all African-Americans, they can be subcats of this. But African-American ministers of e.g. United Methodists would need to be in this one directly. – FayenaticLondon 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but African-Americans who now minister in formerly white denominations belong individually in this category. (No offence intended, in case I expressed that badly.) – FayenaticLondon 14:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, several of the pages in this category are about African-American ministers in historically African-American Methodist denominations, but not all such ministers are in this category, and categories like Category:African Methodist Episcopal Church clergy are not subcategories of this category. (My concern is that, overall, categorization of this topic area is a bit of a mess. The overall logic is unclear.) --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In African-American Christian culture, the emphasis is on being a preacher. This is an attempt to impose white American mores onto African-American classification. How African-AMericans interact with such things is different, and being a preacher is the key issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Role-playing games that use defined relationships[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. We don't need to categorize role playing games by all of the intricate features of their rule sets. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Orlady in particular makes a strong keeping argument which is not effectively challenged, and it is important to note the large number of other similar categories which have not been objected to. Given the background of numerous acceptance of them in Category:People from Cumberland County, Maine, I do not think I can construe this debate as establishing a consensus to remove one particular example. However, I would view this outcome as without prejudice to a wider re-consideration of the granularity of this overall set of categories, so that this particular example might be revisited. -Splash - tk 22:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Firstly, this category is probably more meaningful than the county category would be. In New England, towns (like Baldwin) generally have a stronger identity than counties. Cumberland County is the state's most urbanized county (including the state's largest city), so the county name is not as good an identifier as it would be in a more predominantly rural part of the state. Also, eliminating this category will not enhance -- and could detract from the maintainability of the categorization scheme. There are 19 other town-specific categories in Category:People from Cumberland County, Maine, and all but one of the pages currently slotted in the county-level category are for people (1) whose town-specific association is not discernible from the articles, (2) whose association with the county is not discernible (they may not belong there at all), or (3) were associated with the Cumberland County before its boundaries were changed to remove their town. In these circumstances, eliminating this one category would not simplify the county category, but eliminating this category could get in the way of periodic maintenance to take care of the clutter in the county category. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Realistically Orlady's arguments would work in most of the mid-west at all. I feel a loyalty to Sterling Heights, Michigan, but no overall connection to Macomb County, Michigan. However, it creates way too many small and not useful categories to split to specific cities when they have few people who have articles. 3 articles is just too small for a category, so we should upmerge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, my larger concern is that this category is a valid part of an overall categorization scheme -- one in which people are sorted primarily by town. There are 19 other towns in this county that have categories that no one is objecting to. Furthermore, because there are several pages in the county category that cannot be categorized by town (because the town is unidentifiable, at least in the current article), removing this category would diminish the value of the overall categorization by throwing the three Baldwin articles in with the stew of articles that cannot be properly categorized. --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while it only has three articles, "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, ... may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." from WP:SMALLCAT. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I believe this category should be upmerged as it is too specific; as it is, it only serves to remove one article, "McClaren (Porridge)" from the broader Fictional Black British category. I don't think there is plenty of scope for expansion, and as all Scots are Brits anyway, it perhaps doesn't make sense to single this one out. I'm not even certain McClaren is notable enough to have his own article; that page should probably be deleted. If the situation were ever to radically change, and across various media we were to see a range of article-worthy Black Scottish characters appear, we could always revise this decision.Zythe (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the race of a fictional character is not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Until my book on Akan colonists settling just north of Glasgow in 1483 (which I have not yet began to write) beomces a world-wide hit, so powerful we need to have articles on its 3 main character. Seriously, until people write books like that, this is an unneeded category. There is nothing preventing such books in the future, but they don't yet exist, so we lack any Black Scottish people who are not part of the political entity of Great Britain. The fact that there were virtually no Black Scotts before 1700 does not effect us here, since we are dealing with fictional people. Whether my Akan colonists actually will count as ethnically "Black Scott" I will leave just ambiguous enough in my book, that others will have to debate it.John Pack Lambert (talk)
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:Alumni of St Cuthbert's College, Ushaw[edit]
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 and redirect. – FayenaticLondon 06:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have tagged both categories, to allow for merger in either direction. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I created the older category, and am not sure at all at this late date why I chose the longer name. For what it is worth, the college closed in 2011, not 2014.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- no preference which way. Retain a category redirect to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 unchanged. There seems to be dissatisfaction with the close of the 26 Dec CfD in a similar way. It may necessary to re-nominate to achieve a fix and/or consistency. (A side note: I fully agree that the formulation proposed is grammatically incorrect (in at least British English), and should not really be supported whether it is consistent with some other category or not. Be careful of legislating blindly). -Splash - tk 22:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no consensus to use Category:Women bishops instead of Category:Female bishops - the closure of that cfr discussion seems completely arbitrary. "Female" is the correct term, since it is an adjective and "women" is not. Maybe this is a WP:ENGVAR issue? In British English, we would usually use "female" adjectivally and not "women". The apparent argument used in that discussion that "female" does not apply to adults is a ludicrous one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm like Necrothesp, I think the outcome of that CfD needs to be rethought. Why is there no category 'Man bishops' or 'Men bishops'...? Honestly don't care except that I believe we should have a category containing women/female bishops, and I hope a good outcome follows from that. John Vandenberg(chat) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) [if you try to answer that question, you have missed the point][reply]
@John Vandenberg: See WP:Cat/gender: "a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male". The same applies with religious leaders. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well aware of that (but do remember a large kurfuffle about gender breakdown of a category like American novel writers, iirc?). My point is 'Men priests', 'Man priests', etc are jarring to my Australian brain which otherwise wallows in strine all day without issue (even the eyes hurt..). OTOH, 'Male priests' does not. I dont think this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, but maybe it is. Men vs Women implies segregation due to vast differences in identity attributes - this is more appropriate for sports and teams (but not for individuals in those team). Male vs Female is more clinical; less connotations IMO. John Vandenberg(chat) 11:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. 1-if we rename a parent, we might as well rename a child. 2-women is the preferred term for adult human females, and bishops are all adults. Especially woman bishops. We will find a few mideval and early-modern exceptions for males, but none in the post-1970 Anglican female bishops cat. BrownHairedGirl ignores the fact that the previous closure was largely based on the well founded argument that woman is the preferred term for adult females. The "this is an adjective" claim ignores how English really functions. The most clear example of this is the Women Priest movement. If the claims of some here were correct, they would call themselves the female priest movement, but they don't. This indicates that when we are talking about ecclesiastical officie, the actual term used is woman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In our article on the Roman Catholic position on ordaining owmen to the priesthood we have the line "Pope Francis' cop-out rationale illustrates a very selective theology: to blame a previous pope for his stance on women priests,". I think this suggests we should rename the category at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"women is the preferred term for adult human females". It's the preferred noun. But this is using it adjectivally, which, despite what you seem to be claiming, is relatively unusual, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. And it isn't necessarily preferred even as a noun. The British police use "female" as a noun to refer to any female of any age, for instance (just as they use "male" to refer to any male of any age). You are taking a couple of examples and using them to claim that this is overwhelmingly the common term, which is completely unscientific and ridiculous. "Women bishops" is certainly a term that is used, but it isn't the only term that is used. "if we rename a parent, we might as well rename a child". Only if the renaming was correct. And let's remember that the parents of Category:Women bishops use "female"! So even by your reasoning the category shouldn't have been renamed in the first place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some editors have interpreted my "oppose" !vote as an indication that I prefer the term "female". Quite the contrary; I much prefer "man" or "woman", because they are the normal terms used between humans to refer to people by gender. "Male" and "female" are reserved for academic or impersonal usage. The reason I oppose it is that categories are easier to navigate it and easier to populate if they follow a consistent terminology, and no attempt is being made here to maintain consistency. Category:Female religious leaders currently uses a random assortment of female or woman: Female Anglican bishops, Female Christian clergy and religious, Female Christian missionaries, Female Mormon missionaries, Female Roman Catholic missionaries, Female leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Female missionaries, Indian women religious leaders, Women bishops, Women rabbis ... and would prefer consistency over my preferred terms. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Articles like this one alternate between "female" and "woman": [2], I don't think we need to waste time at CFD doing renames from female to women or vice versa. A recent broad approach was !voted down. Let's focus on more important stuff than female vs women issues plz...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm not going to claim to be the world's foremost expert in the Queen's English, but using the word "women" as an adjective in this way seems jarring and wrong. The December 26 CfD listed above was a very bad close and shouldn't set a precedent, IMHO. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per Bhg - Category:Anglican women bishops (switching word order) would actually be best & follow general usage, but it's not vital & the communuity has rejected a general change for now. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Similar categories such as Category:Peplum film actors and Category:Poliziotteschi actors were already deleted with the rationale: "We really do not want to categorize actors by which genres they were in. Actors move from genre to genre a lot. They move from medium to medium a lot, but genre hoping is almost universal." Cavarrone 09:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination still hasn't been thought through. I can see a possible case for getting rid of all such actors-by-genre categories, but I see neither an implicit nor explicit case for your partial purge. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Support per nom, and better English. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. – FayenaticLondon 06:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think it makes any sense to categorize large landforms (mountain ranges, rivers, etc) by small administrative units that are also subject to change. Larger mountain ranges and rivers might fall within multiple regencies. It is also much easier to search them by geographic regions (i.e.islands). Both articles in this category are already in Category:Mountains of Sumatra so the category can be deleted. ELEKHHT 07:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
