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.
Agree with Peterkingiron on the limited necessity to split in this particular case.
Also there is another, more general, issue: this type of category names is getting really ambiguous now. The proposed name Category:19th-century Christian Science churches might mean: 1) buildings built in the 19th century, 2) older-than-19th-century buildings used by this church since the 19th century, or 3) a community of this church existing since the 19th century that may have used different church buildings in the course of time. I think we're renaming church buildings to churches too rigidly.
Finally, this may refer to this particular case, or not, but it seems that we are lacking a Category:Former 19th-century churches and Category:Former 20th-century churches because many of these buildings are no longer in use as a church and it is questionable if they should stay in the Christian Science tree at all. The most defining characteristic of these former churches concerns their historical value, not their former religious use. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both of your issue seem to be a need to split these category not an issue with the naming. @Peterkingiron:, what do you mean by merge "all"? Are you saying just ignore the prior discussion entirely and just reverse it? No one seems to have brought the discussion up to deletion review so I don't see anyone thinking that the discussion was closed incorrectly. That doesn't make sense policy-wise. Otherwise, as I noted in my close, there were these concerns about a split but there was no support there for that. If there's a need for a split, that split could be a separate discussion (see Category:Protestant congregations by century of establishment for an example) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't move these to churches for now. Here, there isn't a Christian Science congregation category that would create confusion here. @Marcocapelle:, for two, perhaps the naming should be more like buildings rather than as such (akin to Category:Christian Science churches completed in the 19th century)? Then current usage doesn't matter. Otherwise, if we want to separate currently used versus non-used, then we should look to something like Category:Ruined churches of World War II and create perhaps a Category:Ruined Christian Science churches or defunct or something but I think we can go with churches completed in for buildings and split off congregations established/disestablished which would solve all your issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For a faith that's only been around since the mid-19th century, a date split isn't helpful: it just produces an extra level of categories that impair searching. Marcocapelle, what in the world are you talking about? Any idiot can see that "First Church of Christ, Scientist (placename)" belongs in the Christian Science tree. Anyone taking them out of the Christian Science tree needs to be reverted mercilessly and blocked if they persist. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the idea, though presumably in that case they should be upmerged to all parents rather than deleted, because the buildings tree as a whole is organized by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 22 July 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.
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 created this in my early days of WP, imitating a navbox that used subcategories instead of plain rows. I'm perfectly happy with redoing the navbox/categories from scratch. Choor monster (talk) 15:50, 16 July 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.
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.
Rename but I wouldn't oppose listifying either. This doesn't seem like much of a shared property to categorise for... - jc3703:27, 17 July 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.
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. This was never going to result in any outcome but "delete", both because there is no use for the category, as it refers only to a non-notable subject, whose article has repeatedly been deleted, and because it is being used not as a category but as a fake article. However, I am deleting it now, rather than waiting, because it was also created by an account which was clearly created for the purpose of evading a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:17, 16 July 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.
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:Rename to avoid confusion like in this discussion. It is not a generic category (as the current name suggests) but a category using a British-only term implying that only British people are in the category. Let's better make that explicit. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Dialect words do not indicate scope restriction, only word choice. Further, could be confused with agents representing dead people -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The information available on Wikipedia does not exclude Scotland for the use of this term. Also, if in Scotland solicitors deal with this, it implies that there won't be any Scottish people in the category, but then the proposed category name would not really conflict with the absense of Scottish people. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Estate agent" is unambiguous, and adding "British", etc., implies the nationality of the person, not the profession. In fact, the disambiguator "(people)" is also superfluous. No reason for it not to match the article Estate agent that I can see. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 17 July 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category is not relevant at all, it is overkill and any other editions of this tournament don't have cats. MYS77✉00:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We should not be encouraging categories for age-limited competitions. The players will generally be NN, unless they become notable for what they do later in their careers. We have recently had CFD nominations for Universidade games, where exactly the same considerations apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing in these kind of youth tournaments does not confer notability, so they do not deserve categories - it is not a defining characteristic. GiantSnowman19:28, 19 July 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.
