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, unanimous discussion. – FayenaticLondon 07:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to much recent precedent for not categorising univeristies by assocaition membership. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 26 July 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:upmerge lists only, then delete. – FayenaticLondon 23:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective upmerge of lists only, to Fauna of Great Britain. 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Omitted from merger of other countries at CFD July 2 because it was a fairly new and almost orphaned category. The 4 pages in it are already within Category:Fish of Europe or appropriate sub-cats, so no merger is needed. – FayenaticLondon 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose category also fits into Fauna of Great Britain which contains ... Fish of Great Britain (4 P) Lists of British animals (1 C, 5 P) Lists of insects of Great Britain (27 P) ... This seems like sensible categorisation. Gregkaye (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right. Both the lists should go up into that parent. And thanks; I have now put the other country- or Island-based lists in Category:Lists of fishes of Europe back into the relevant Fauna category. – FayenaticLondon 07:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- We are presumably dealing with freshwater fish: Haddock as a pelagic fish should not be in. However how many of the fish are indigenous only to GB? Are not most merely European fish that managed to settle in GB at the nend of the last ice age, or perhaps an earlier one? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, no, it contains only 2 lists and 2 saltwater fish. We are not discussing the contents of the lists. The saltwater fish should not be categorised by island. – FayenaticLondon 06:52, 28 July 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 07:38, 16 August 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:British actors who served in the armed forces[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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:TRIVIALCAT as the arbitrary past tense intersection of "British actor" and "British military personnel". Britain had conscription for twenty years around WW2, so many actors will have served in the forces. McGeddon (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. I created the category as I couldn't find a listing of all British actors who had served in the armed forces. In the course of finding actors who fit the category I went way past the period of conscription from 1939-1960 finding actors who had enlisted voluntarily or who had served in WW1; Noel Coward for example. While I accept the largest number will be during the WW2 and post-WW2 service period I think it's an extremely useful, encyclopaedic category. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not convert this to a list? If would be better able to explain the periods of service in relation to their acting career. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While a list would be better than no reference at all I still think a category would be best. I can think of several reasons why a user of the encyclopaedia would wish to take advantage of it. I know I've had cause to search the Wiki on a number of occasions over the last five years for actors who served in the war in particular. In that context it's as useful as searching for singers or actors who went to Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts. In terms of being frivolous why would military service be more so than where one went to school? As a serious historian I would advocate a student would be able to take advantage of the category to find out which famous British people had military service, which regiment they served in and any campaigns they were involved in which could lead to a lot of other research being achieved through the Wiki. Perhaps McGeddon's good faith nomination is bereft of any thought for military historians? With this information would he reconsider? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re "why would military service be more so than where one went to school?" if there are any "Actors who went to <school>" categories then they should also be brought to CFD. (Note: Category:Alumni by drama school includes people who are not notable as actors - example) DexDor (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection of two characteristics. In what way is one's occupation as an actor tied to one's military service? Furthermore, if there is a connection, is it equally significant for an actor to enlist or be conscripted as it is for a serviceman to become an actor? Unless there is a special connection, then this is basically part of a Military personnel by other occupation category scheme that does not (and should not) exist. If this is in fact a topic of real-world interest (i.e., one that is covered non-trivially by reliable sources), then a list is a much more suitable mechanism than a category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 15:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. There may be some "People who did occupation A and later did occupation B" categories that may be of use to some readers, but it's a recipe for huge category clutter. It's better to have a small number of categories that stand a chance at being maintained (i.e. contain all eligible articles and are free of non-eligible articles) than to have a large number of categories that can't all be maintained. DexDor (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the definition of trivial intersection. The two will often be unrelated. In the United States at least a large portion of the male actors served in the US forces during World War II, and many both male and female actors were involved with the USO, who I guess weren't actually military, but there was a connection. At the same time those in the military varied from James Stewart who was a lieutenant in the regular military with regular assignments to Ronald Reagan who worked on making films for the military. I'm sure there were lots of others who were in the military and then got into acting afterward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Military service in WWI or WWII was far too common to make this a useful category. In contrast actors who served in ENSA should ahve their own category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 26 July 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:Future New York City Subway stations[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:rename to standard form. If any splitting is needed to complementary standard categories, that can go ahead without further discussion here. – FayenaticLondon 10:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: consistent naming with rest of the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename under criterion C2.C. The rest of the category appears to use 'Proposed' consistently in place of 'Future'. -- Black Falcon(talk) 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to use a lower level category by country. As long as one category, usually the one for the system, is in the country, the top level under construction or planned category could be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about one system. So it does not affect other systems. However the general extension would be the same as for all other projects. If it is under construction it would be in that tree and not under proposed since once construction starts it is no longer proposed. If it fails after then, it goes into unbuilt. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the current form invokes the idea that they will be, we don't know that, only that some level of attempt has been made to create them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for Now as an improvement. I'm open to discussing how to handle Under Construction/Cancelled/Etc though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - "proposed" implies that siome one had proposed doing it; even if it ends up being cancelled, it's still "proposed". On the other hand, if it's canceled, it wasn't ever a "future" anything, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But these are not proposed! They are under construction. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, before the construction started, they had to be proposed; and they aren't ready to use yet - that makes them "proposed". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REname but purge by an AFD on any stations are are not under construction or at least unco9nditionally funded. Anything less definite fails WP:CRYSTAL (or ought to). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really agree here. The realization of the station may be a matter of WP:CRYSTAL, but the proposal for the station may have raised for real and may have been documented as such. That's exactly what would make it into a Wikipedia article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 27 July 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:Future Second Avenue Subway stations[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. – FayenaticLondon 10:29, 28 July 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:upmerge to 2 parents mentioned in the nomination. (Note: both the member articles are already in both those parents.) – FayenaticLondon 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There have been numerous discussions about creating these type of sportsperson categories below the state/province level (such as "Basketball players from New York") and we have always intentionally NOT created them. You can see a discussion from earlier this year here, however similar discussions were held previously for Portland, Oregon and Chicago, Illinois (at a minimum). Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Yorkshire equates to state/province, but it looks like "Cyclists from Leeds" is a sub-category and it seems like that one would. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think, generally, more specific occupation+city is too far for a geographical intersection. The "sportspeople from X City" and "X players from X state/province" generally are not overloaded. The New York basketball players category (arguably one of the largest of its type) is not overly large at 665 articles. More of an argument could be made for something like Category:English footballers (population 15,481), but again that is still at country, not sub-state level. SFB 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge although I still wonder if we should even break-out sportspeople by specific borough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 22 July 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:rename/merge. – FayenaticLondon 10:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Transjordan became independent only in 1946 and officially became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1952, hence for 1945 and before it should be regarded as Transjordan (standing for Emirate of Transjordan between 1921-1946), as OETA (1917-1921) and Ottoman Syria (1517-1917). This is in line with other similar cases to refer to contemprorary entity for the time.GreyShark (dibra) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Transjordan was the name to reflect it was the area of the initial Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River. The name Jordan was adopted after the creation of the state of Israel to reflect that it in addition to the East Bank, also included the West Bank. The fact that this is no longer the reason for the name should not cause us to use a historically inaccurate name for historical categories. The pre-creation of Trans-Jordan categories clearly need a different name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- These categories should always reflect the name of the contemporary polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 26 July 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:Boston Tea Party (political party) politicians[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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 21:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the party is defunct, no new articles are available to add. The only other name, for the VP candidate, was a non-notable name and that article is now a redirect to the parent. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one article is already categorized in a related ideological category, so deleting this category will not remove any articles from needed categorization. We do not need one article categories in most cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 22 July 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:King Edward VI High School for Girls[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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 21:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only the main article and an alumni subcategory which is otherwise appropriately categorized. There does not appear to be enough material about this school to warrant an eponymous category. If there is no consensus to delete, then the category should be renamed to Category:King Edward VI High School for Girls, Birmingham to match the main article. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- the school article will make a main article for the alumni category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 26 July 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:Naval Battles off the Cornish coast[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:upmerge. – FayenaticLondon 07:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naval battles are already categorized geographically, by the body of water in which they took place (see Category:Naval battles by sea or ocean). A new category tree for naval battles by coast is unnecessary, could result in a proliferation of categories for hundreds of coasts around the world, and will ultimately be haphazard and arbitrary because "off the coast" is not clearly defined—how close to land must a naval battle be in order for it to be considered "off the coast"? If there is no consensus to upmerge, then the category needs to be renamed to Category:Naval battles off the Cornish coast. (Category creator not notified due to inactivity.) -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where the Cornish coast starts and end is subjective. The parent categories already sufficiently fulfil the needs of categorising by body of water and Cornwall, respectively. SFB 19:12, 23 July 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:All Hong Kong Schools Jing Ying Football Tournament[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:already deleted under Speedy G8. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - parent article deleted as non-notable, this is also non-notable. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 July 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.
