Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21[edit]

Category:Bishops of Thebes, Greece[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. – Fayenatic London 16:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT. On top of that, the two articles in this category are very unrelated to each other in the sense that there's almost 2,000 years between the two bishops. Upmerging isn't necessary, since Ieronymos II of Athens is already doing well in Category:Archbishops of Athens and All Greece, while Rufus of Thebes is okay in Category:1st-century bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Nothing you say is wrong, but there is potential for expansion. It is sometimes hard to categorise such a category, especially by country or by faith, but such cats make sense. Over a very long period of time, a city changes countries, can host bishops of different faiths, that does not shock me. This particular cat is in poor state though. Place Clichy (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of a whole structure of bishops of Foo. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? There's only 6 more bishops in WP not categorized by Church of Greece diocese, while there are dozens of additional dioceses, so it'll only lead to more single-member categories. That doesn't aid navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actual point is that the holder of this position is notable, and we should have articles on the other holders of this position. THus there is reasonable potential for growth. The lack of more articles shows very poor coverage of Greece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2015 (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:Grammy Award-winning artists[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 12. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With actors and comedians receiving awards for non-music work (i.e. comedy albums), this would be a more encompassing description as "artist" is more often affiliated with music than it is things like comedy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Link to previous discussion from SEP 2012 in which the reverse rename was proposed and implemented. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting..... however, my point still stands that "winning artists" is too narrow of a description. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I didn't !vote on it myself, but the earlier discussion should be presented here. I would like to see what the community says. However, "act" is an option as well, as comedians are acts just as much as musicians and groups.
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:Television series by Fox Television Studios[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: procedural close, category page has not been tagged. – Fayenatic London 17:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Why is this category named after Fox Television Studios instead of 20th Century Fox Television, anyway? Aside from that, it was announced in December 2014 that the actual company known as Fox Television Studios would be merging with Fox21 to create Fox21 Television Studios because both studios were focusing on the same market: Cable TV. Also, Fox TV Studios is a smaller company that 20th Century Fox TV. Jim856796 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2015 (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:Miss Grand winners[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 to Category:Miss Grand International delegates. – Fayenatic London 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just two winners, a category is not necessary The Banner talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (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:Wendover Air Force Base[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; upmerge sole article to the ten parent categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Has only one entry. ...William 18:40, 21 February 2015 (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:Incomplete lists of Eastern Orthodox Christians[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. Only Archbishop of Akhalkalakhi is not currently in Category:Eastern Orthodox archbishops so I will add it there. – Fayenatic London 17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per common sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have a look at these "lists"? I'd rather not pollute any category with it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the place to propose merging articles or deleting them. That has to be done in article related space, not here. So we should not even consider that proposal here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right, the nomination is to delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2015 (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:Invalid redirects[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 Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name is deceptive and confusing. None of the pages in this category should be redirects - instead, they are pages that contain invalid redirect hatnotes. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Module:Redirect hatnote, coded by Mr. Stradivarius, populates the category, so would need to be changed to implement this. See Module talk:Redirect hatnote for the discussion which led to creation of the category. What is invalid may be a matter of POV. Sometimes the hatnote is correct and the redirect needs to be fixed; sometimes the hatnote is invalid and needs to be removed. I'm not sure clarity can be obtained just by reading the template name; the template documentation should clearly explain the implementation so no one is deceived or confused though. Then there is the related Category:Missing redirects – the redirects wouldn't be "missing" unless a hatnote claimed they existed. Sometimes it's appropriate to create the redirect so that it's not missing anymore, other times it's appropriate to simply remove the hatnote. There is widespread editor confusion over the difference between the {{redirect}} and #REDIRECT syntaxes; I don't know what the best answer for that is. Also note that this category serves as a sort of vandalism detector. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there User:Wbm1058. My points is that a category that doesn't actually include redirects shouldn't be called XX Redirects. Also, maybe the somewhat longer "articles with invalid redirect hatnotes" is better. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I just said, not all of the hatnotes flagged by this category are "invalid (redirect) hatnotes". Some of the hatnotes are quite valid. It's the redirects that aren't valid. The direction you are heading could lead to a rather lengthy name for this category. For example, the hatnote on Power inverter says that "Inverter" redirects here. If an editor changed Inverter to redirect to twister instead, then Power inverter would show up in Category:Invalid redirects, and indeed, Inverter would be the invalid redirect. The redirect hatnote is still perfectly valid. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the wrong page goes in the category. In your example above, Inverter should be in the category Invalid Redirects, and not power inverter. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that would be more of a challenge to implement from a technical standpoint. This category also detects budding edit wars over what should be a WP:primary topic. To solve your issue, we need a more precise category name, like Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes which are inconsistent with the associated redirects. That's more of a mouthful. Makes no POV judgement over which is "invalid", simply notes their disagreement. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered one more thing this category flags: Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes which are inconsistent with the associated redirects, or which claim that a title redirects to itself. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the hatnote from International Court of Justice. Did you notice that the reason that got into the category was because of this edit, which took the World Court off of primary topic status. So, a judgement call needs to be made whether to endorse that by removing the hatnote, or to revert the edit which boldly took the World Court off PT. When you pinged me, I was busy repairing the links to disambiguation caused by that removal from PT status. I endorse that because International Commission of Jurists, while a distant second-place contender for PT, is sufficient in my view to say there should be no PT for that acronym. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (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:Deaths from heart failure[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 Category:Deaths from heart failure. I think that User:DexDor's comment about Wikipedia biographies being encyclopedia articles as opposed to obituaries or news items is particularly on point and convincing here regarding the question of whether or not this is defining. This close obviously brings the subcategory, Category:Deaths from congestive heart failure‎, into question as well, but only the nominated category is being immediately deleted as a result of this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. As heart failure states, a cardiac arrest is technically different from a heart failure, which is confirmed e.g. by American Heart Association. Category:Deaths from heart failure currently contains 1,113 articles, in case of split either a bot or manual check should sort the things out. Brandmeistertalk 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandmeister: do you mean that the "cardiac arrest" category, which was created as a redirect in 2010, should become a subcategory, and the pages should be split between the two? I think it would need to be done manually; are you volunteering to see it through? – Fayenatic London 17:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm personally thinking of a separate category for cardiac arrest, not a subcat of heart failures (I've just corrected the template). As for manual sorting, in case of split I'll try what I can, but any help would be welcomed. Brandmeistertalk 17:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: should we keep this category at all? I mean, heart failure is so common that it's quite questionable if we should regard it a defining characteristic. Besides the 1,113 articles are probably only a fraction of the actual deaths from heart failure of all people that are in Wikipedia, simply because the cause of death is often unknown. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support repopulating the Category:Deaths from cardiac arrest category on the basis it is made a sub-category of Category:Deaths from heart failure. As Marcocapelle says, general heart failure is a very common cause of death and the category isn't of great use. I'm not volunteering for a manual resort so I won't suggest deletion of the latter category anytime soon! Sionk (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Editor2020, Talk 02:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though this is a renaming issue. Absolutely defining, the cause of death is always in the lede of any obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous question and per Editor2020. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think then the parent Category:Deaths by cause should be proposed for deletion to avoid inconsistency. 10:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all "Deaths by cause" categories which list deaths from common natural causes. That's undefining, and irrelevant to be categorized. Keep only death categories related to murder, suicide, war action and accidents, because they are comparatively small, interesting, and relevant for the knowledge of their circumstances. "Death from pneumonia" would get a 100.000 entries easily, "Death from heart disease" probably a million, by 2020. Kraxler (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Split The cause of death is a strong defining characteristic and one that appears in virtually every obituary, and the usual only situations where its not listed is where it's unknown, in which case the obituary often feels obligated to list the absence of a known cause. That the real world deems this to ba a strong defining characteristic is why this should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An obituary is usually published shortly after a person's death and as part of the news so it typically (although not always) includes information about the circumstances of the death (often in the format "John Doe, former president of Fooistan, died yesterday <details>" - i.e. they also explain why the person is notable). Wikipedia bios are not obituaries and are not news; they are encyclopedia articles. DexDor (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kraxler etc. If kept and intended to be a category for bio articles then it should be renamed to "People who died from ..." (the Deaths category tree should be for articles about deaths, not for articles about people). DexDor (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too common a cause of death to be considered defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2015 (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:Ukrainian Orthodox Church[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 Category:Ukrainian Orthodox church bodies and Category:Members of Ukrainian Orthodox church bodies (note: "the" does not appear to be appropriate). – Fayenatic London 17:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. Because there are three different Orthodox churches in the Ukraine and they all three have their main article in this category, the category name should be in plural and without capital C. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (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:Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus'[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 Category:Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus', rename Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus' to Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per C2D, see Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Although the proposed names are a bit longer, it is nevertheless recommendable to remain consistent with the main article's name because there are no less than three different Ukrainian Orthodox churches with rather similar names. Inventing a shorter new name for one of them will only lead to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, makes perfect sense and would be a lot clearer. Place Clichy (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am convinced the renaming would be pure politics with no encyclopedic value, utterly preposterous from the historical perspective. There's already the List of Patriarchs and Metropolitans of Ukraine, which is rather dubious, as it mostly contains names of hierarchs of the periods when the mere word "ukraine" did not exist: all the titles were "of Kiev and All Rus'". Now, this renaming would even remove the appropriate category for all Russian Church primates of pre-Moscow period. Well and good, if we accept that Kiev was in 10th-15th centuries a "Ukrainian" town, I'd like to see a single document testifying thereto.Axxxion (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have purposefully left aside the issue of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church being universally and completely unrecognised, not only as independent ecclesiastical entities, but even as legitimate ecclesiastical bodies, by all the Orthodox community in its entirety. As this could be viewed as a political issue as well. But then, Orthodox church organisation and politics (geoplolitics) have been and are inextricably intertwined.Axxxion (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metropolitans in this category are undoubtedly 20th-century metropolitans of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, there isn't any political issue involved at all. The fact that this church is not recognized by other churches is not relevant for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, have you actually taken the trouble of having a look at who are in the Category:Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus'? All the folks there are pre-18th century. Moreover, in case you are unaware, neither Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate, nor Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church has, or has ever had such title as "Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'". This title (as a full version thereof) was only in use by the primates of the Russian Church, when it was a metroplitanate of the Ecumenical See of Constantinople, namely until metropolitan Jonah of Moscow, who still, technically, retained the title "Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus'". Please do some basic reading prior to nomination. The second nom is probably legitimate.Axxxion (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be wrong just to rename this category. "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church" is the invention of the 20th century. I want to emphasize that the Orthodox Church on the territory of nowaday Ukraine was not autocephalous and has not titled as "Ukrainian" before the XX century. Contemporary Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church not recognized by anyone in the Orthodox world. ~ Чръный человек (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Чръный человек. If somebody insist to use this project as political tool, he can create Category: Non-recognised Orthodox Churches, where he can includ Ukranian, "Macedonian and other similar Churches, created by the end of XX century. Macedon-40 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all for clarifying. I admit that after having looked at one category, I didn't have a thorough look at the other category, as they seemingly bear the same patriarchate name. It merely emphasizes the confusion around this.
Alternative:
Withdraw renaming Category:Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus'
Propose renaming Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus' to Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, so including Metropolitans, because a separate category for Metropolitans of this church is apparently lacking.
By the way, the two noncanonical churches are indeed parented to Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal surely makes sense (that is if we designate this category for the UAOC), though they do not appear to have ever had a primate with the title of "patriarch". Thus, i would suggest using the term "Primates" instead of "Metropolitans and Patriarchs". This would make clear what we mean here. But, regardless of this narrow issue: Marcocapelle, I think you might be under some misunderstanding as regards these categories and the associated titles: there is a somewhat odd category Category:Metropolitans of Kyiv and All Ukraine, which, technically speaking, would be fit for the primates of the UAOC, but the persons who actually were placed there, are quite different. I have removed it from all the articles where it has been, as it is obviously wrong to use it for those bishops, who were never the primates of any church body. The core issue here, is that when in ROC, or KP, or UAOC one uses "Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine", it is definitely perceived as a unique title for a primate of the church - you cannot use it as a generic, catch-all, term for the bishops. I would propose to have a category "Bishops of..." for each jurisdiction in Ukraine, which would be enough for all bishops thereof, irrespective of a specific title, including patriarchs. Though, for primates, it is possible to create distinct categories called "Primates of..." (name of the jurisdiction), irrespective of specific titles, be it metropolitan, or patriarch. This would make things much clearer than they are now, when we have lots of similarly named categories pertaining to various jurisdictions, often with similar names too. Thus, it might be expedient to rename Category:Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate to "Primates of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate"Axxxion (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, moving the Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops of Kiev, as suggested, would be wrong, as the category covers not just metroplitans, but also patriarchs. In Orthodox church, "bishop" is a generic term; but "metroplitan" is a specific title of a bishop, like "archbishop", or "patriarch". Unlike in the Roman Church, a bishop cannot be Patriarch and Metropolitan at the same time.Axxxion (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also much in favor of your other proposals, as they will make things a lot more transparent, which is clearly needed. Though please note that they will require new nominations. This nomination only deals with two particular categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the discussion above. Marcocapelle, thanks for the constructive discussion. Unfortunately, I am not able to devote much time here; but if you make other renaming proposals along the lines, please notify me so that I could support them. I was a bit off-base on the UAOC primates, apparently: Mstyslav (Skrypnyk), technically, was their patriarch, kind of. But the use of term "primate", that you had launched even before my suggestion, obviates this difficulty.Axxxion (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative 2 per above clarification. Thanks to Marcocapelle for persevering with this tricky issue and for having the humility to change when new evidence is brought to his attention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is two completely different titles. One is the original title of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the other is a title of church that tries to distant itself from the Moscow Patriarch. Metropolitan of Kiev and all Rus (Ruthenia) is predecessor of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, the Patriarch of Kyiv and all Ukraine, Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine (UAOC), and Major archbishop of Kyiv-Halych. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand from your explanation that you oppose the original nomination, but not the alternative, is that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, I am against of any changes to the Category:Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus. It is a historical title that was granted to Metropolitans of Kiev by the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was stolen by the Patriarch of Moscow twice. Metropolitan or primates of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church has little or nothing at all to do with that. I do not understand your reasoning to rename. Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is a split of the Ukrainian national revival movement of 1920s. The Archbishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church also trace their roots to the Metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus. You cannot simply rename it that just because of simplicity. Italy is not the Roman Empire even though both centered in Rome. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please, do not pay attention to Чръный человек. He is a Russian nationalist who will never recognize existence of the Ukrainian culture and history. Russia is also an invention of the Peter the Great as you will never find on any map a state of Russia before 1721, but you will find Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I have already withdrawn the rename of the category you are referring to. Please see alternative nomination halfway the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: I took the liberty to remove the CfD template from the one withdrawn category. While I realize that is a bit unusual, it will at least avoid unnecessary concerns like in this later part of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (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:Patriarchs of Kiev and All Rus’ - Ukraine[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. (I think User:Axxxion must have confused the existence of the article Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate with the until-this-close non-existence of Category:Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per C2D, see Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate. Although the proposed name is very long, it is nevertheless recommendable to remain consistent with the main article's name because there are no less than three different Ukrainian Orthodox churches with rather similar names. Inventing a shorter new name for one of them will only lead to confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, makes perfect sense and would be a lot clearer. Place Clichy (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. With the appropriation of the name "Nova Rus" by the insurgents in eastern Ukraine, it's likely that it will be needed as a disambiguator in the future. Laurel Lodged (talk)
  • Very hard to see any objective rationale behind the proposal, as the proposed name simply does not exist: his title is just what it is called now.Axxxion (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (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.

Assyrian/Syriac people[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. We're left with three different proposed solutions, neither of which enjoys much support, and a very low participation considering the topic. No prejudice against re-nomination, but the discussion should likley be more widely announced the next time. Huon (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. According to Assyrian people as well as according to Terms for Syriac Christians this concerns one people for which two or three (including Chaldean) different names are being used. There is no reason to keep different categories under the different names, they can be merged to the parent category that contains both names. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: the main page is actually Assyrian people, so I suggest that the categories should follow this, and Syriac and Assyrian/Syriac categories should be kept as redirects. – user:fayenatic london 17:13, 21 February 2015‎
  • Weak oppose to the alternative because I expect that this naming issue is a very sensitive topic to people involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose main article is Assyrian people, so all categories should use that as the parent form. Further MOS:SLASH/WP:SUBPAGE -- avoid using slashes as they appear like subpages -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not too familiar with this topic, but I have the feeling that these words have a slightly different meaning from an ethnographic or religious point of view. Place Clichy (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It uses a slash, and it should not, slashes are problematic with Wiki software. If the couplet is needed, then "and" or "or" should be used -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough but this would require a new (speedy?) nomination regarding the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another unmaintainable ethnic category as the opening lead of the Assyrian people seems to encompass ancient Assyria and Christian Assyrians of later era, and the explicit inclusion of 2nd century Lucian (who wrote a rather nasty satire of Christianity) shows this category to have little to do with religion but ethnicity, which (especially, when dealing with ideas of ethnicity nearly 20 centuries ago) is mostly subjective, conjectural, and not maintainable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it's an ethnic category but I wonder how big the risk of subjectivity is. Assyrians were and are supposedly very recognizable by their own language. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if they can't speak Assyrian, they're not ethnically Assyrian? One loses one's ethnicity simply by no longer speaking the original language of the ethnic group. How extraordinary...and trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? the definition in the first paragraph of the cited article says: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect and sometimes ideology, manifests itself through symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc." So, according that, all ethnic groups identifications are likely trivial. What fits this definition: a fraternity, red-haired people, the fox hunt set, lesbians, Elvis impersonators, Esperantists, teamsters, foodies, brewers, Man U supporters, Rotarians, Presbyterians, Wikipedians - all share some common "social" or "cultural" experience that manifests istelf in one or more of the enumerated forms, and no doubt in the "etc." which leaves virtually wide open subjectivity. More unmaintainable nonsense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the concept of ethnicity is not very sharply defined. Yet the term is actually being used for a large number of (ethnic) groups so I guess we just have to live with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although the main article is Assyrian people, the controversial nature of the this topic warrants recognising the two key terms, however two separate cats are not necessary Mugsalot (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Chaldeans and Assyrians I have known (quite a lot of both living in Metro-Detroit) consider themselves distinct peoples, with the Chaldeans being historically Catholics accepting the authority of the Pope in Rome and the Assyrians being historically Orthodox Christians. From what I can tell they are no more the same people than Croats and Serbs are the same people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2015 (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:Rail transport stations in London[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is from a 2:1 decision in 2011. I don't think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) justifies the current category name which does not match its parents, siblings or child categories - they all use "railway stations". "Railway" is fine even for the Tube stations. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 21 February 2015 (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:Ukrainian Orthodox Christians from the United States[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the only article here doesn't even belong in this category (it's about a church building instead of about a person and it's Catholic instead of Orthodox). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2015 (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:Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab albums[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: relist with sub-cats at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 5. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab albums to article List of Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab albums
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATDEF, a category must be a defining characteristic of a topic. Since the label Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs re-issues well-known albums, the category could not possibly be a defining characteristic. The albums are already famous for other reasons. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Is this any different than any other category in Category:Albums by record label? Sometimes, which label released an album is strongly tied to the artist and album (e.g. a lot of Motown or Blue Note for many jazz artists) and sometimes it's just a large parent corporation which releases lots of albums (e.g. Category:A&M Records albums). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's different because in every case, there was an original record label that identified and perhaps groomed the artist, then published the recording and marketed it. Then, after many years go by, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab re-issues the album, without adding to its notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Without adding to its notability" sounds like another of the sort of ill-informed opinion pawned off as fact that I see far too often for my comfort in discussions such as these. Within the context of CD reissues of classic albums, MFSL releases are usually important, particularly during the early CD era when the record companies' own releases were often of poor sound quality. Neutral on the CFD itself. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In college in 1980–82 they told our audio engineering class about the benefits and drawbacks of every audio recording format including the soon-to-come CD. Of course there were vinyl aficionados who were fond of Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs' half-speed mastered LPs, but the presence of these did not significantly change whether the album was praised by critics. A particular MFSL re-release might be praised by audiophile reviewers, but the album's original notability was already firmly established. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The label that reissues an album is not defining unless the reissue itself is independently notable from the original release. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Which record company or label re-issues an album is hardly defining. In this instance I have no objection to a list. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2015 (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:Albanian Orthodox bishops[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 and purge any that do not belong. – Fayenatic London 17:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename C2C to the other child categories of Category:Eastern Orthodox bishops by jurisdiction and in order to disambiguate bishops of a certain church from bishops who are of a certain nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proposed titles are a lot more precise than the current ones, and avoid confusion. However, most of the current Orthodox Churches are comparatively recent (let's say, most of them were only created in the 19th and 20th century), and I am slightly wondering how to treat articles relative to older topics or people. Any idea? Place Clichy (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. The "problem" highlighted by Johnbod is simply one of mis-categorisation of a few articles and not any flaw in the proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: The problem that I intend to address is that some categories actually contain a mix of bishops by nationality and bishops by jurisdiction, simply because the scope of the category is not clear. After clarifying the scope - either by jurisdiction or by nationality - we can purge the categories. Personally I think categorization by jurisdiction is more relevant than by nationality. But I would not really oppose to have it by nationality as long as there is more clarity about it all. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination was not at all clear about what you intended in that case. I don't actually see any benefit in choosing one over the other in these cases, so still Oppose all. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: So which one is it that the current category uses - nationality or jurisdiction? I certainly don't know. From the name, it could be either. Which one is that you are supporting exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly both. I'm perfectly happy with that. Splitting the two is unnecessary. For the vast majority of its history Cyprus was not a "nationality" anyway. The number is fairly small and there is no benefit in a more precise scope. The assumption that every possible elelement needs to be split out is a big problem in our category structure. The proposal would have lost any place in the local scheme for several people, IF anybody had ever bothered to follow up and weed through the categories. Where's the benefit in that? What's the actual potential or actual "confusion" here? How much does it matter? Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, at least I do for 5 out of the 6 nominated categories, as I expect not too much confusion about the Albanian, Cyprotian, Romanian, Finnish and Estonian bishops. However for the Serbian bishops I would really maintain the nomination because bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church may have been of many different nationalities and editors may easily strike the Serbian (Church) category for e.g. Montenegrin (nationality) bishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename and purge any articles that do not conform to the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2015 (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:Computing articles needing images[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. – Fayenatic London 16:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the rest of the articles at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. We organize the request for photographs by the topic being requested, not the WikiProject. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment how is this being populated, with {{reqimage}} or with {{WikiProject Banner|needsimage=yes}} ? These two processes appear to be incompatible in the categorization standards. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done via WikiProject Computing|needs-image=yes. I agree that it's incompatible. I wonder if we should move away from description of things being photographed to just have them WikiProject-based. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's not technically possible to merge these two categories, without an extensive examination of {{reqimage}} and implementations of {{WPBannerMeta}} -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's possible, it would just require manual review. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual for examples. Merge those regarding computing equipment, delete from the category for the rest? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If something should be merged - it should be the latter with the former. E.g. a screenshot of an OS isnt a computing equpment... Christian75 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2015 (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:Death in New York City[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. --slakr\ talk / 05:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Death in New York City to article List of deaths in New York City
Nominator's rationale: Too many people live in New York City for a death there to be a defining characteristic of that person's life and career. See WP:BLPCAT. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not defining, why is it in the lede in every obituary. These are from the current obituary section of the New York Times: "... died on Tuesday in Atlanta, his family said.", "died in prison on Saturday in Bridgeton, N.J.", "died on Feb. 5 at a hospital in Aventura, Fla. " If it is the lede by definition ... it is defining. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the lede of every obituary; it may be the format used by the NYT, but it's not the format used by the BBC (examples[1][2]). The announcement of a death on the BBC radio/TV news typically begins "The American actor, John Doe, who starred in ... has died at the age of ..." (the place/cause of death may be mentioned later in the news report) - and that's in the news announcing the death; for an encyclopedia article the place of death is even less defining. In the John Doe example it's the "American actor" bit that we should categorize by. DexDor (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of those categories should be deleted per WP:CATDEF, as the death of someone in a particular city is hardly ever a defining characteristic of that person. Binksternet (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have births by year, deaths by years and Category:Place of death missing for a reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Place of death is a fact that should (if known) be mentioned in the text of a biography so having (hidden maintenance) Category:Place of death missing isn't unreasonable (I'm not sure if it's actually useful - that depends on whether editors use the category). Does that have anything to do with whether we categorize people by place of death ? DexDor (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the "Death in XYZ" categories. WP:Categorization of people#By place says "The place of death is not normally categorized..." These categories are contrary to the pertaining guideline. Also, the place of death (as such) is undefining, and there has been consensus about not categorizing it. I've been writing bios since 2006, and had not seen before categories like "Death in XYZ". Place of death is usually only categorized when it happened under notable circumstances, like "Suicides per place", or "Disease deaths per place", but never just plain deaths. All these categories should be speedily deleted. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole "Death in XYZ" category structure (for things other than people/bios) is questionable and should be revised, it doesn't make much sense to cramp burials, cemeteries and murders together under some supposed common header, and leave suicides out. Besides, "Death by city" seems to be unnecessarily refined. Burials should be categorized only by cemetery, and only if there is an article on the pertaining cemetery. Murders, suicides and diseases could be categorized by country, or US state. Kraxler (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is a historically valid question which reseachers do ask--Who died in ____ city. Note that while many people in this category are life-long or permanent residents of New York City, many others which I am searching for and adding to this list whose connection to New York is less obvious — Preceding unsigned comment added by J R Gainey (talk • contribs) 15:01, February 21, 2015‎
  • Comment – there is Category:Death (for articles about death) and the subcat Category:Deaths (which redirects to Category:Dead people, although its subcats are usually XXX deaths, eg Category:2014 deaths, Category:Deaths by firearm in New York). Anyway this should (if kept) be renamed to Category:Deaths in New York City (because all the articles are about people rather than death). Category:Death in New York City would be a valid category (given some non-people articles or subcats) cf the perfectly valid Category:Death in New York (which contains articles about cemeteries etc). Oculi (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: The same could be said for people FROM New York City!!!! So why aren't you nominating it for deletion as well?!?!?!?!? JRGainey — Preceding unsigned comment added by J R Gainey (talk • contribs) 15:01, February 21, 2015‎
    • The from categories are for people who are associated with the city through their life and work. Simply dying in a place doesn't necessarily mean the place is of relevance to a person's life. Even if the place of death is of wider relevance to the person, then they would warrant categorisation under the from category anyway. SFB 15:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify people The place of death is not an item worth categorising on, just like place of birth. We should categorise people by the cities they are identified with (e.g. people from Foo City), not simply places where they happened to have been born and died. This is also a misuse of the Category:Death by city structure, which is for articles about or related to death, not certain people's deaths (which is under Category:Deaths by city instead) – note the ongoing discussion on the same topic at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_18#Category:Deaths_by_city_in_England. SFB 15:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "List of people who died in New York City" would easily get 100,000 blue-linked entries, but I think would be forbidden under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Kraxler (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That topic is clearly defined and not indiscriminate in any known meaning of the word. I agree with you that it's not very relevant as a facet to link two people on, which is the basis of my argument. If we think converting a category to a list would lead to that list being deleted, then obviously the category is a pretty bad concept to start with. SFB 23:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Deaths in New York City" as opposed to simply "Death".
  • Delete per Kraxler. I originally felt it should be renamed to "Deaths in New York City" as opposed to simply "Death" like Oculi said, but then I read WP:Categorization of people. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kraxler/SFB, however check whether any of the pages/subcats need to be upmerged. Alternatively, remove all the bio articles and add a banner limiting the scope of the category to articles about death. DexDor (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the "Death in XYZ" categories per Kraxler. Editor2020, Talk 02:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Deaths in New York City; that's how it's being used. If this were about "death in NYC", I would expect articles about the coroner, morgues, etc. not celebrities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware that the category "Death in" really should be "Deaths in" but in either case it will still have the problem of failing to meet WP:CATDEF, such that the place of death is not a defining characteristic for by far the majority of people in that place. Renaming does not solve that problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely defining, it is in the lede in every obituary. These are from today's New York Times: "... died on Tuesday in Atlanta, his family said.", "died in prison on Saturday in Bridgeton, N.J.", "died on Feb. 5 at a hospital in Aventura, Fla. " It is a big difference to die in Albany and die in Manhattan. Some deaths by cause categories already have huge numbers of entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are documents specifically covering the death of a person though. After time has passed, the place of death loses much of its relevance and is no longer the focus of most biographies. This is why very very few people actually know the place of death of even the most important figures of history (when it's natural causes, anyway). Albert Einstein, Jane Austen, Ludwig van Beethoven, Aristotle – does anyone seriously know where these people died? Or think that W. H. Auden and Marcus Aurelius are in need of a direct link to one of these and one another simply because of a shared place of death? SFB 23:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't, except Einstein, since it was 15 minutes from my house. Nor can I recall offhand the death years or birth years, yet, we have a category for the death year and birth year, each populated by tens of thousands of entries. I imagine the categories are not used for navigation much, but by data miners and AI programs like Siri and Google Now. It is a way to harmonize data. When the parents gets too big, you can break it down into each of the five boroughs that comprise NYC. If we do not like the categories on the article page, banish them to be displayed on the talk page like we do for some other categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some obits (e.g. Last Word) don't generally mention the place of death. Other obits (e.g. in broadsheet newspapers) have a style that always includes information such as whether the person married and had children (and whether they survived/predeceased the subject) but we don't/wouldn't categorize on that. Date of birth/death are a special case - those categories (many of which contain thousands of articles) are not for (human) navigation, but for administrative purposes (e.g. ensuring articles are correctly tagged as BLPs). Regarding data-mining - isn't that what WikiData is for (and possibly also infobox templates) ? The data-mining argument also assumes that such programs don't use the article text and that argument could mean categorizing by every fact in the article. DexDor (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Children and surviving spouses, and the funeral arrangements are placed in the LAST paragraph, not THE LEDE. Your argument is called the strawman fallacy, I never suggested we add a category: Category: People who are married to Doris Schmidt or Category:People who are the parents of Elsie Schmidt. And you threw in the slippery slope fallacy at no extra charge, touché. You don't have to guess, you can test that Google uses the formatted data by creating an article with two different death dates. It uses the formatted one, not the prose version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "Google uses the formatted data" do you mean the infobox data (rather than categories) ? DexDor (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with cause of death, place of death is a standard characteristic of obituaries published around the world, and a strong defining characteristic. I'm not sure why we would want to associate two people who share a year of birth (and were born on different sides of the earth) or people who shared a place of residence (but lived hundreds of years apart), though we have broad consensus on retention for all of these things. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some obituaries may give prominence to information about the persons death, but wikipedia articles are not obituaries and what a person did to achieve notability (in politics, sport etc) is far more defining than where they died (which may well depend on such things as which hospital they were taken to when they became ill). DexDor (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, WP:Categorization of people#By place says it's undefining. Period. To say otherwise needs a change of consensus there. The perennial objection that years of birth and death are used, has been explained many times before: the life time is, by the same set of guidelines, after establishing consensus, considered defining, and it's used to identify bios, especially BLPs. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obituaries tend to leave out the good stuff like convictions, controversies and overstate a person's level of involvement in churches and fraternal organization. I'm not opposed to using them as a resource, but they are a highly biased and selective one. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are thinking of obituaries for non-notable local people, because that is all that you can say about them. I am looking at the five obituaries from today's New York Times and there is not one mention of a church or a fraternal organization. I find older obituaries from the 1920s and earlier tend to mention social organizations the person belonged to: "... member of The Philadelphia Club, Manhattan Club, Long Island Polo Club ..."
  • Delete. I am not convinced that place of death is defining. In fact, I'm quite convinced that it is not defining, even though it is of course notable and will invariably be mentioned in an article about the person. We have long agreed that place of birth is not defining, and I think even that is much closer to being defining than place of death. I can't see much value in listifying this, either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The place of death is not defining. Many people die in a given city because they were taken to a hospital there for special care, but they have no real connection to the city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does their year of death define them? That definition would be very different from someone who died in 1900 in Haiti and one who died in 1900 in Manhattan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keep arguments above. Also, if when a death occurs is defining, then where is too. Obituaries and biographies certainly treat them equally. Last, the category system should be able to aid researchers, not stand in their way. I see too much of a "deletion for the sake of deletion" notion with this and the "burial by city" nom. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The year-of-death categories (which contain thousands of articles) are really more for administrative purposes (e.g. so bots can spot anomalies) than for grouping articles about similar topics. Hence they can not be equated to normal "navigation" categories. See also JPL's comment below. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to the article List of deaths in New York City. It would be easier to keep up with the deaths this way, it seems to me. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC) But it would be fine to keep the category "Death in New York City" too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or listify. If I live in Yonkers but go to NYC for a surgery (a likely scenario) how is the city limits of where I died defining? It's not like dying on the battlefield of Gettysburg. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a container for burials, cemeteries and suicides, but prune remaining contents i.e. people who died by less remarkable causes. We do not need a Category:Deaths in New York; see the national category Category:Deaths in the United States which contains only various defining categories. "Death" as opposed to "Deaths" should be kept, see Category:Death in the United States for what we categorise there. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eventually all categories that are not considered notable enough will be migrated to Wikidata, but if the categories are deleted now, there is nothing to migrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 March 2015
Really? I thought the Wikidata team wanted _cited_ information (i.e. from article text, not categories). DexDor (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative to keep as container only per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We categorize by when people died because grouping them chronologically makes sense, we need to seperate out living and dead people, and date of death is a basic biographical fact. Location of death is not a basic biographical fact. One way to tell this is the date of death categories are much larger and more developed than the location of death categories. Closely related to this is the fact that year of death is a universally agreed upon standard, with distinct years to group people in. What would be the universally accepted standard for dividing death location. Should we have Category:Deaths in Warren, Michigan, Category:Deaths in Provo, Utah etc.? And if not, on what basis would we exclude these locations with over 100,000 from the general plan? Bear in mind, there are many publications that will list birth and death years in parenthesis after mentioning a person much more often than including place of birth and place of death. This shows that the birth and death dates are more central to identifying people than the place of birth or place of death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do keep this category we should at least rename it to Category:Deaths in New York City.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2015 (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:Greek Orthodox bishops[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. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to disambiguate from Orthodox bishops who are of Greek nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually delete is a third option that I had only implicitly mentioned. I wouldn't mind delete though. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_21&oldid=1136462611"