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.
Comment -- I would have thought that it ought to be possible to populate this. Perhaps, the problem is that articles have not been written on notable members of the faculty staff. This may be becasuee this is presumably not an English-medium university. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2013 (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 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.
Delete - Perfectly appropriate for inclusion in an article, but inappropriate for categorizing people by receipt. Those who become notable enough to be in Wikipedia will likely have many awards, and be "defined by" almost none of them. --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This award is not even clearly notable, we do not have an article just on the award, which means it is not even close to being anywhere near the regular cut off for these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2013 (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.
Keep What a strange proposal. Tintagel is a real place and it being associated with Arthurian legend is absolutely defining for it. Likewise Cadbury Castle and Glastonbury, etc. However, I do agree it is not defining for Llys Halt railway station or indeed for Rio de Janero. The solution is to avoid including such inappropriate places in the category, as has wisely been done even in the case of the railway station. Thincat (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per what Thincat said. It's no different from any of the other mythological place categories, and the Matter of Britain certainly qualifies as such. Kuralyov (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did London get included in this category? Some of these things are only maybe even referenced in Arthurian legend. This is a bad way to categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category was added to London with this diff but I don't understand the edit summary "(+Category:Arthurian locations; +Category:Robin Hood locations using HotCat - Category:London was in those cats, which put a bunch of irrelevant cats into the Arthurian/Robin Hood cat tree)". However, the cats have seem to come down out of the tree by now and Arthur seems to have missed out on Llys Halt. I don't understand the rest of your comments so I'll go off to bed because it's quite late. Thincat (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now understand the edit which added the categories to London (see my reply to DexDor above). The editor at the same time removed Category:London from the legend categories (diff). However, it was probably a mistake to have London, let alone Category:London, in either category since they are not (to my mind) defining for London. Thincat (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We ought not categorize things by reference within fictional schema or mythologies. Those are infinite, and non-defining to real-world places. I'd also like to note that the "Arthurian" cycle has become so broadly adapted that it includes locations in space as well as in the US and Asia. --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, citation needed, I think. It is certainly defining for Tintagel, where Arthur-related stuff keeps the local economy going, and a few other places. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia Kenneally Morrison's Arthur-in-Space books. I was also told Stargate did Arthurian stuff? I'll get back to you on the Japanese stuff. As for US -- JFK, of course! ... Anyway, I'm not saying that Tintagel or Camelot or Avalon shouldn't all be listed as places associated with Arthuriana. I'm just saying that X by association with Y is not a good model for categories, and it's not any better when "Y" is a particularly popular and well-known story cycle. --Lquilter (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But prune drastically and sub-divide. Distinguish and split between purely fictional places like Avalon (there are enough of these for a category), places much later associated with Arthur by canny businesspeople (like King Arthur's Hall, Tintagel) and places that have some claim to be those mentioned in major pre-modern versions of the cycle. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not about modern fiction. Arthurian literature goes back the best part of 1000 years. Some of the places such as Mount Badon and Camelot barely have an existence outside the legends, as their actual location is uncertain. If deleting, please Listify in Sites and places associated with Arthurian legend, so far as not already there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Badon is a redirect to Battle of Badon and neither are in the category being discussed here. My nom suggested that the Camelot article be kept in the Arthurian category tree. For info: I'm trying to remove category clutter from articles like London and Bodmin Moor (before this type of category spreads - e.g. "James Bond locations"); I'd see no problem with a category like "Fictional locations in Arthurian legend" (e.g. a rename+purge). DexDor (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what about the locations that are not fictional or mythological but are real places, and for which Arthurian association is defining. Please find time to consider at least one article, Tintagel which has been mentioned four times above. Thincat (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2013 (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.
Oppose - while we don't need categories for one article, the category has now been expanded to a reasonable scope by GiantSnowman. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This concerns a club in the top national league, so that a category ought to be needed. But rename to match main article (or vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2013 (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: Questionable if this is a defining characteristic. Would include the vast majority of books ever published. Editor2020 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and re-title. I created the category to classify written anthologies which contain both chapters and verses. Contrary to rationale, would include only a minority of books ever published because most book-long publications do not contain verses identifying roughly-sentence-long passages (i.e. Hebrew and Christian Bibles, Book of Mormon, Quran, etc.) for easy citation. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really defining. Also, it is arguably misapplied. A-The Doctrine and Covenants which is in this category, does not have chapters at all. B-Does it really make sense to put the Bible or the Book of Mormon here, when the main division of these books is into books, not into chapters and verses?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; I cannot imaging walking into a book store and inquiring whether they have a book divided into chapters and verse or one that isn't without laughing at the the quizzical look on the salesperson's face the inquiry would cause. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What? No. We can't start classifying works according to the various internal schema that might be applied to them. --Lquilter (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2013 (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 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.
