Category:Climbs in cycle racing in the United Kingdom[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:keep. The option to nominate the entire tree for deletion is available. ℯxplicit 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:NON-DEFINING - The articles (e.g. Cadbury Hill, Leith Hill) in this category are not specifically about cycling (many activities can take place at these locations) and are well-categorised by hills-of-county etc. DexDor(talk) 20:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will support deleting when the entire tree is nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 1 September 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.
Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism (from X)[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:Kept. Timrollpickering 20:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Oculi:, these need to be moved back. Place Clichy (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theses were exceptionately moved so per WP:BOLD - and has been maintained in that state for more than one and two years, respectively. However, if you want to make a move request to prove a WP:POINT, sure, feel free. Conversation is formally speaking full communion with the Holy See, in accordance with Catholic ecclesiology. Perhaps you were reading the wrong article; Protestant ecclesiology? In either case, its message should be applied to Protestantism and its various denominations - not the Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was unclear. This discussion and rename request pertains solely to Catholic Church in its most general sense; Category:Catholic Church that is. Please feel free to start discussions relating to taxonomy of Category:Latin Church and Category:Eastern Catholicism/Category:Eastern Catholic Churches, however, for general convenience, please keep/start those discussions in other locations than this one. Here, they will only result in confusion and contention, and is there kindly asked to be dealt with elsewhere. Thank you very much! Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer does not address the changing of scope suggested by this move request. In this category tree at least, "Roman Catholicism" means Roman-rite Catholicism. Changing it to "Catholicism" or "Catholic Church" gives it a larger scope, which is a mistake. In your answer you seem to suggest instead to rename Converts from XXX to Catholicism (which also exists, see Category:Converts to Catholicism and subcategories) to Converts to the Catholic Church. If this was your intention, feel free to withdraw this discussion and open a new one. Place Clichy (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read about people who regard themselves specifically a member of the Latin Church while not regarding Eastern Catholics as fellow church members. Of course in the structure of the categories there should be separate subcategories for Eastern Catholicism when it comes to history and liturgy, but otherwise not much diffusion between Latin and Eastern Catholicism is useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of biographical articles, when the information is known, it is better to precise this information when we know it. For instance, if an Orthodox converts explicitly to the Roman / Latin Church (however you chose to call it) rather than Eastern Catholicism (the case of Bessarion comes to mind), then this information has encyclopedic value and should be reflected in the categories. Merging these categories with Converts to Catholicism at large, which mostly contains people for which this information is not known, unsure or inapplicable, is a loss of information. Place Clichy (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy:. You'free to advocate development of separate Category:Latin Church and Category:Eastern Catholicism category trees. However, is it too much to ask for to keep that particular church variable discussion aside from this one, in order to not mud it? This discussion pertains to Category:Catholic Church, which clearly has a longstanding raison d'être, along with far-reaching category tree - including for conversion and converts. Afterwards, feel free to branch that however you like, but would you please let this discussion pertain to that very top category tree branch, please? That said, on the side note, your arguments for how you think the particular churches category tree should be treated are very welcome at: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholicism)#Latin_Church (which notably currently lacks WP:CONSENSUS contrary to your assertions). Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: The trouble is that you nominated Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism and subcats for renaming, but your answer applies to Category:Converts to Catholicism (a mother-category) instead. Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism is a sub-category of Category:Roman Catholics, which is itself a sub-category of Category:Latin Church. Feel free to suggest renaming of Converts from XXX to Catholicism to Converts from XXX to the Catholic Church and of Converts from XXX to Roman Catholicism to any vocable of your choice which uses "Latin Church", if this has your preference. I'm not sure that I would agree with the new proposal, but at least it would be coherent with your rationale and it would not change the scope of these longstanding categories. I also gave an answer at the other discussion page you suggested. Place Clichy (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you and quite many here get it right. The essential part of adherence to the Catholic Church is full communion with the Pope, not which rite you employ or jurisdiction. If you are admitted by a bishop to a diocese, you are admitted to all the church, independent of whether jurisdiction (Latin Church or Eastern Catholic Churches) the bishop formally belongs to. It seems many of the commentators on this request fails to assimilate this, and thus makes it more complicated than it has to be. I would therefore caution against hastely closing this nomination before all commentators are on terms about what we are discussing. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - needless change, the Catholic Church is the organization but Catholicism is the movement, sort of how we have Category:Latter Day Saints but we have Category:Converts to Mormonism. Also per WP:COMMONNAME, most sources I have seen said "Person X converted to Catholicism" not "Person X joined the Catholic Church" Inter&anthro (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One converts to a religion, not a church. I propose to speedy close this as a proposal without factual merit. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The religion Christianity is divided into multiple Christian denominations. Are you saying these are irrelevant to specify? As for Catholicism, it redirects to Catholic Church. As a consequence, its seems like your argument could use an overhaul, in accordance with category naming practices. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:19, 26 August 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:Rename. Timrollpickering 20:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More standard name for such categories. DexDor(talk) 15:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming. Consistency in these categories is important; this is a classic NotWith construction without considering the existing framework. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the need for consistency but this one uses Biota of, and the one below uses Fauna of. No views either way. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are different: "Biota" is all wildlife, including animals or plants, whereas "Fauna" is just animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:30, 25 August 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:speedily deleted under WP:G2. – FayenaticLondon 08:35, 26 August 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.
Category:Christian fraternities and sororities by country[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. Timrollpickering 20:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, unneeded category layer, also taking in mind the very limited content of the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 24 August 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:Delete. Timrollpickering 20:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support will foreseeably only have one member. per nom. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and delink redlinks in main article, which are there to encourage the unnecessary creation of articles on the annual events, or worse still articles on the subject matter of the annual event titles. This is an annual event, but we do not have annual articles, except a redirect from the first one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 August 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: Category setup for the cyclists on an individual team. As far as I know, we don't have a structure for doing this for cyclists, and would create a lot of category clutter with cyclists moving from team to team on a frequent basis. Compare the Category:Team Sky, which doesn't do this (no Chris Froome, for example). LugnutsFire Walk with Me 06:51, 24 August 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:Merge. Timrollpickering 20:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT and I also can't see that this category is clearly distinct from its parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of three members are already in the target category; the other is Armenian quote. These three pages relate to the intentionality of the Holocaust. Consider merging to Category:Planning the Holocaust. – FayenaticLondon 07:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a possible alternative merge target. Though I'm not really keen about it, because that category is more about the operational planning. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge or alt merge as the topics are identical. Place Clichy (talk) 15:55, 29 August 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:Rename. Timrollpickering 20:19, 1 September 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:Delete. Timrollpickering 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category for a band without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. As always, every band does not automatically get one of these just because it exists -- they're created only when they're needed navigationally, by virtue of the band having a lot of spinoff content that falls outside the standard categorization schemes (e.g. Category:The Beatles, where there's a lot of stuff besides just the band article and their albums.) But this band doesn't have that, so it doesn't need an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 24 August 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.
Done delinked redlinks. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 4#Category:Androni–Sidermec–Bottecchia. ℯxplicit 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
