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.
As it's currently used, I agree, merge - but I can see the potential use for this for war cemeteries etc. There are WWI cemeteries in Belgium for British troops, for instance. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (it currently is Serbia only) but I did not go through all the royal subcats to make sure that there are none are outside Serbia, for example where a king died in exile. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2018 (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:no consensus. (@Wumbolo: a nomination such as this has little chance of success unless you supply a reason why you believe it has no potential for growth. Assertion is not reasoning.) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALL, this has no potential for growth. wumbolo^^^ 21:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any actual reasoning why this has no way of being expanded? Great Great Grandson (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am unconvinced WP:SMALLCAT applies; I suspect a little research would reveal there have been innumerable boycotts of television shows, but admittedly few of them merit a Wikipedia article. Daask (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2018 (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: Most tent cities become shanty towns over time and are better described as such by the time they merit a Wikipedia page. Difference in definition is minimal. Note: I removed Category:Intentional communities from this category because it seemed better to apply to the articles themselves and let editors there make the call on whether it was appropriate. That may have been the basis of another editor's distinction. Daask (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See below for new Daask plan at this category name per the Civil Rights Movement's Poor People's Campaign which was a temporary tent city but not a shanty town. I also added Burning Man to the category, which is a yearly event using well-organized tent city structured "neighborhoods", and added back the category 'Intentional communities' as self-explanatory. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Sm8900, Randy Kryn, and Hmains: From the articles for these topics, it looks like a shanty town is any settlement of improvised housing structures, and a tent city is any settlement of temporary housing structures. These definitions are just too similar to clearly differentiate.
That said, let's look at the articles in question. From the pictures, it's not apparent to me that Dignity Village strictly belongs in either definition in its current form. I reckon Right 2 Dream Toofits in both. Far from being temporary, Tent City (Tennessee) lasted for about two years, and I can only presume that it was largely improvised given its sudden creation and large population.
Those seem fine. You've put some good thought into this, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2018 (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. ℯxplicit 05:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to our article, a skyscraper is more that 40 stories. Phoenix has none; every building in this category is 40 stories or under. MB 18:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to the article, many early skyscrapers are/were well below 40 storeys in height - and those still in existence are often still described as such due to their method of construction (especially those belonging to the Chicago school of architecture. However, some tightening of the criteria for this category is probably necessary. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but all the tall building in Phoenix are in the 20-40 story range and all post 1960 - so none would of these would ever have been true "skyscrapers" using the contemporary definition when they were built. It seems to me that if the definition has changed over time, a category usage should match the present definition. MB 02:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an existing category tree. Wikipedia has no separate hierarchy for high-rise buildings, and Category:High-rise buildings doesn't exist. - Eureka Lott 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then the whole category tree should be renamed to high-rise buildings. WP should not categorize articles incorrectly; if others categories are as incorrect as "Skyscrapers in Phoenix, Arizona", renaming them all would be the best solution. Since "skyscrapers" are also high-rises ("A very tall high-rise building is referred to as a skyscraper"), then just calling them "high-rises" covers everything neatly, including buildings that may have been called skyscrapers when they were build but no longer fit the definition. A few subcategories could still be created for true "skyscrapers" where warranted. MB 23:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purge (including subcategories), if this means they will become empty, so be it. Creating another buildings tree with a subjective inclusion criterion, next to skyscrapers, would not not be very helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, please clarify. I don't understand what you mean here. The characterization of whether a building is a "skyscraper" is a bit subjective - but whether a building is a "high-rise" is much less so. No one has suggested another "buildings tree". MB 13:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the minimum number of stories of high-rise buildings? According to whom? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as with many things, there is no specific answer to this just as there is no "official" definition of a skyscraper. But all skyscrapers clearly are also high-rises, so renaming the category tree from skyscraper to high-rise can't possibly mis-characterize anything. MB 01:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly my point: yet another type of category with subjective inclusion criteria (high rise buildings) is one too much. Just buildings is good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If people want to implement the 40-stories rule, then we should work to purge those buildings that are less than that from categories. It does not require a rename or any action here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2018 (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:split, this is a hodgepodge, two articles are about religion in France only (Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being), the term 'cult' of these two articles are completely different from the current meaning of the term; one article is about cult only and not about religion (People's Mujahedin of Iran); and the other two are certainly about cults and more implicitly about religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially it is a WP:SHAREDNAME nomination, as the category is based on two different meanings of the word cult. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the aim of this category could be made more explicit (and the two articles you mention could be removed from it): it is (or should be) about "cults" in a derogatory sense, or with the meaning of "new religious movement". See Category:Cults. Apokrif (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, if those two articles are removed they should be added to Category:Religion in France instead, and the remaining content is too little to keep apart for France so can be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per nom, with the additional point that the less categories we have with the WP:POVTITLE "Cult" the better. Daask (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2018 (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:no consensus. Weird deletion rationale by nominator, no responses. @Mark the train: unless you explain why you think the page doesn't actually serve the purpose of a category, then the nomination is a waste of time.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't actually serve the purpose of a category. MT TrainTalk 07:51, 9 April 2018 (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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
