Category:Removed Confederate States of America monuments and memorials[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 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:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials[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 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: We don't need a scheme of artists by record label nationality (and, in fact, we don't as this is miscategorized under Category:Artists by record label). This is a trivial fact that doesn't help with navigation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created it because a similar category exists for South Korean labels. And the category actually helps navigation a lot because if you are into J-pop you get to browse only the categories related go Japan. Actually, the category has already helped me a lot. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't browse by label there. And actually, I don't know why the Category:J-pop musicians event exists. All modern Japanese music (including rock) is classified as J-pop by the industry. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2019 (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:reverse merge. Any issues with subcategories can be handled either as speedies (C2C, as applicable) or through another CfD. I feel there has been enough consideration of the overall tree here to make this merge as a start. Pinging Marcocapelle as someone who would likely be interested in going through this tree. ~ Rob13Talk 03:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains, can you specify which aspects of the scheme need review/discussion? DexDor(talk) 06:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
just noticing all the 'by manufacturer' sub categories and sub-sub categories. I wonder whether all these can be appropriately renamed to 'by company' Hmains (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Many companies today own brands and develop prototypes under that name but contract outside firms (often in China, for example) for the actual manufacturing. How is this nuance currently handled (having the two categories) and how would merging the categories allow for distinguishing between companies that own and sell branded products, and the companies that manufacture them?--John Cline (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question and I don't expect anyone has thought about this before. I'm guessing that products manufactured by another company than the companies that sells them are are not defined by the manufacturing company, so then it's perhaps not an issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge (or Merge a Nominated) Although in theory, you could have manufacturers/distributors/retailers, in practice this is one category. I prefer by "company" but by "manufacturer" is better than leaving two categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (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 all per nom. The argument that there is a realistic potential for growth was successfully refuted by RevelationDirect, who pointed out that it is tremendously unclear that there are sufficient notable non-Christian places of worship in these towns to justify these categories. No such places of worship were advanced as potential articles. No prejudice against future recreation if such articles come into being. ~ Rob13Talk 03:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article next to a churches subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge we do not need every possible level of category in a potential tree filled out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:SMALLCAT does not apply. SMALLCAT is for categories "will never have more than a few members" and "does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth [...] may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Many of the recent nominations citing WP:SMALLCAT as a reason for deletion are invalid applications of that guideline. WP:SMALLCAT also makes it clear that if categories are part of a wider subcategorisation scheme (in this case, places of worship by city), then it does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grutness (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge All While there may be more houses of worship, it's not at all clear they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No objection to recreating if any get up to 5 or so articles. If this was by state/province, I would be one thing, but there are thousands upon thousands of municipalities RevelationDirect (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the other oppose vote, the usage of WP:SMALLCAT is misused in this nomination. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2019 (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/delete. ~ Rob13Talk 03:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But is it not the case that both churches are still Lutheran (as opposed to, say, Calvinist) in theology? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, otherwise they wouldn't have merged with the Calvinists. In the neighbouring country in the Netherlands which I am more familiar with, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands contains a lot of former Calvinist parishes that aren't truly Calvinist anymore nor have converted to Lutheranism. The borders between Calvinism and Lutheranism have simply evaporated. I suppose something similar happened in Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categories are too small to aid navigation with little room for growth. No objection to recreating if any cats get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose each of these categories contains a category which has a fair share of articles. The usage of these categories as container categories is useful and far from problematic. I never new that having more than 4 articles in a category and it was still considered WP:SMALLCAT. The usage of WP:SMALLCAT in the nomination is therefore erroneous. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all; the nomination appears to be carefully constructed, keeping various sub-categories that have sufficient contents to be helpful for navigation. For example, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Rhineland-Palatinate will remain, and is already in other categories for cathedrals and for churches in the location. – FayenaticLondon 22:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There are many competing proposals here, with no clear consensus for any of them. If we were to rename, it would likely need to apply to the whole tree. A wider discussion is needed. ~ Rob13Talk 03:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Articles with ITEM" isn't good English. If this were an ordinary template-transcluded category, I'd just edit the template to change the name of the transcluded category, speedy delete the existing category under G8, and create a new category at the correct name. However, this category currently has 5,400,042 articles, so it's not safe to do anything without a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Keep existing title. The category refers to the template {{short description}} and not the generic term. OTOH, if it were renamed, the whole tree should be renamed for consistency. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 05:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename entire tree. It would be editorially irresponsible to willfully retain this category with such a plainly obvious grammatical inconsistency, especially when it belies our own best practice and published naming conventions. The template's singular title is never retained (for any artful reason) when plurality is grammatically required. Consider, for example, that its use ({{Short description}}) is governed by WikiProject Short descriptions and that the first descriptive sentence in each of these misnamed categories is that they are "pages with short descriptions". Consider, as well, the following examples (far from an exhaustive list):
Showing but a few, you can review the entire list and will not find such mismatched grammar. There is no special case for retaining it here.--John Cline (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't care whether there should be a renaming or not; after all, the meaning is clear. However, since most articles have only one short description, the logically correct title for a rename would be "Category:Articles with a short description". --RexxS (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that Articles with a short description would be an aptly more correct title; continuing to believe that they should be renamed. Thank you RexxS for appending your insight here.--John Cline (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I also agree with this idea. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also not be opposed to this variation. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 23:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question, does anyone have an idea about the technical implications of the proposed move, with this many articles involved? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the renaming is merely a matter of changing the category name in Template:Short description. That will create a fairly large queue as the servers update all of the transclusions. It's the sort of load that occurs when a parameter is added or removed in a template such as infobox person, so we should try to get it right first time if a rename is agreed on. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, see the second sentence of my nomination statement; the servers indeed will have tons of work, but it's trivial for any human who has the user rights to edit the template. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: So how bad is it when the servers have this amount of work? Can it affect reachability of Wikipedia, or can it substantially decrease the speed of other tasks being processed? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Job queue. In short, tasks like this one run when the server has some spare time. It will definitely take hours to implement (maybe days?), but this isn't something that will slow down the server, let alone crash it. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, both "articles with a short description" and "articles with short descriptions" are grammatically correct English, with the plural being preferred, contra RexxS.[1] I find switching to either of these more grammatical forms to be trivial, and agree with UnitedStatesian that can be interpreted as grammatical if we understand the "short description" to be a reference to the template. Daask (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daask: Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment that switching to a more grammatical form is trivial, but the thread at Stack Exchange really doesn't contradict my argument: "... the distributive singular may also be used to focus on individual instances ... The singular is sometimes used to avoid ambiguity ... It is incumbent, therefore, on the maker of the message to anticipate when ... the message is inherently ambiguous ... the message needs to be phrased in such a way as to be clear to the recipient how many of the items are involved for each ...". I don't agree that the plural is preferred when the audience can't be expected to know from their prior experience whether an article will contain one or many templates; in such a case I believe the singular removes any ambiguity. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's grammatical, why is this form not followed by any of the redirect templates? Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to be the same scenario, since there is (normally) only one short description for an article, yet there can be multiple redirects (and of multiple types). — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 23:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal to rename to Category:Articles with a short description; A standard approach to short descriptions is that there can only be one per article; a description that best fits the subject. Renaming per nominator proposal would not make sense with this approach. Jalen D. Folf(talk) 22:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This should have been a C2A, but either way it's a clear grammar improvement. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2019 (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: Only a sub cat in it. Not even a category description JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:48, 31 December 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: Small cat with only 2 cats, and I would say that it's not even defining for Belle. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have one person for whom it is defining, and that is not enough to justify a category. The term "broker" is general English is never used alone for this profession, nor is this seen as a sub-cat of the broker profession, it is a distinct profession that just has a shared name with real estate brokers and other possible brokers, so the upmerge is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger; neutral on deletion -- A pawnbroker is the provider of a particular kind of finance. A broker is a dealer who is an intermediary (eg stockbroker). They are sufficiently different for merger to be inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2019 (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.
Upmerge one article categories are not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2019 (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.
