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:Famous animals
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.
Support change to
Category:Individual animals. Both "famous" and "notable" are discouraged. If they are not notable there will not be an article for them. The goal here is to make it clear that these categories are for a specific animal, not where you put articles on a breed or species.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Use "Individual animals". Famous and notable do not discern if they are about the class of animal as a whole or and individual. Pandas are famous animals, all Great Pandas. Great White Sharks as a group are notable.
65.94.45.160 (
talk)
04:50, 29 April 2011 (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:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations
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: Not an encyclopedic category. Simply serves to support the POV that a rabbinical ordination can be combined with an occupation.
JFW |
T@lk20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't know where you're from Debresser, but this issue is one of the main bones of contention between
haredim and the secular in Israel. Ask any black roshei yeshiva and you will almost alway get the answer that boys must stay in learning without taking qualifications, and when ,married better if the wife works to support the family. The hardeim are in poverty b/c employment is not encouarged by their leaders.
Chesdovi (
talk)
12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Reform? What is a haredi rabbi doing on the internet? Only heter according to gedolim is for business. Lubavitch semicha doesn't exactly count.
Chesdovi (
talk)
20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable cat, showing that there were great rabbis who had a livelihood to support thier failies instead of becoming a burden to society and relying on state handouts.
Chesdovi (
talk)
12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Note that this user was the original creator of this category, who continues to populate it even while this dicsussion is continuing.
Debresser (
talk)
14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Employment is frowed upon in modern day haredi orthodoxy. This cat shows that there were previous Judaic sages who supported themsleves, in direct opposition to the trend nowadays.
Chesdovi (
talk)
20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I would point out to OhioStandard that saying "this is more interesting thatn this other category (that does not exists) would be" makes no sense. I also fail to see why it is more interesting to have a category of Orthodox Rabbis who had other occupations than of Catholic Priests. If we were discussing a list I could understand it being more interesting, the rabbis other occupations might be more interesting, but in a category you just have people not anything about them. This category is about a non-defining intersection. This is almost as bad as a category named "people who have African and other ancestries" and then we thrown in people with Hawaiian, Irish and Cherokee ancestors. If this was
Category:Orthodox Jewish rabbis who were laywers and we had a bucnh of sister categories things might make sense, but as it stands this is just a people who were and also were not a given thing. To follow my above listing this could also allow us to put those Orthodox Jews who were also lawyers in this category and in the
Category:Lawyers who practiced another occupation. We want to nip this category in the bud. It almost seems to be one that could be listed as an example of "Categories not to create". Some of the above given statements of the creator also give me the feeling this is a POV-pushing category to be used as part of his broader attacks on the Heredim and their world-view. I actually agree that in general religious leaders should not be paid full-time, I am a Mormon afterall and virtually none of our leaders are paid, but I can see POV-pushing for what it is and think we need to delete categories that exist to POV-push.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:30, 3 May 2011 (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.
People who died in Nazi concentration camps and Nazi Concentration Camp victims by camp
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 current set-up also creates the problem that the victims of the geneocidal attacks on the Jews and Gypsies, and the victims of the attempts by the Nazis to slaughter the intelligentsia of Poland to make the Poles into a people more easily enslaved, are not clearly at any level distinguished from those who were killed because they proactively resisted Nazi rule. The focus on those killed in camps is ignoring people slughtered by mass shooting by the Eisatzgruppen and other deaths that were part of the "Final Solution" or the genocide of the Gypsies or other orchestrated mass slaughters that did not occur in camps.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
keep This is about the people dying in the camps and is significant as such. There are already broader categories covering the people killed by the Nazis in other places than the camps. This distintion should be kept.
Hmains (
talk)
02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep The idea that "Nazi concentration camp" is a euphemism is news to me and probably 99% of the world. In fact the Nazi atrocities pretty much erased the original meaning of the term "concentration camp".
Pichpich (
talk)
20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep That these individuals died in a concentration camp is a strong defining characteristic.
Alansohn (
talk)
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:Nazi Concentration Camp Victims by Occupation
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.
Nominators rational - Concentration Camps is an ill-defined term. The Death or extermination camps where the vast majority of people killed in the Holocaust died, specifically the gas champers, were only euphamistically called concentration camps, they were not such. There were also people lined up and shot by the einsatzgruppen who never went to camps, and people who died in other situations and conditions that did not make it to camps or did not die in the camps but would be counted as holocaust victims.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
keep This is about the victims in the camps and is significant as such. There are already broader categories covering the victims in other places than the camps. This distinction should be kept.
Hmains (
talk)
02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Why are victims in the camps notable by occupation, but victims of the holocaust overall are not notable by occupation? Also you are ignoring my point that most of these people died in death camps, not "concentration camps".
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but only because it's a parent to the category structure. Reconsider the concept behind the structure. I will admit I am no expert on Nazi concentration camp practices but I have to wonder whether the people sorted based on being of a particular occupation and dying in a camp were in the camps because of their occupation. If it turns out that there are great swaths of people who were killed in the camps because they were lawyers or opera singers or pharmacologists, then fine. If not then my feeling is that categories for the intersection of "occupation" and "killed in a Nazi camp" should not exist.
Harley Hudson (
talk)
04:03, 30 April 2011 (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:American Mormon missionaries and other Fooian Mormon missionaries
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.
Nominators rational - Mormon missionaries in general serve for two years. A large portion of Mormons serve as missionaries at one point in their life. For most of the people in this category their having served a mission is not the main way even their being members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been expressed. Beyond this we have the question of whether "Mormon" should just designate members of that Church, all members of the Churches grouped as part of the Latter-day Saint movement, or some sub-set of members of the Latter-day Saint movement. There is nothing significant gained by having this as a sub-category of
Category:American Latter Day Saints.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Having been a Mormon missionary is almost always relatively defining for those who were. If it's not defining for a given person that was a Mormon missionary, they don't have to be placed in the category. Mormon churches that are not the
LDS Church, such as Mormon fundamentalists, do not send out full-time missionaries, so I see little chance of confusion by use the term "Mormon missionaries".
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. For at least one of the Fooian Mormon missionaries categories, the nominator manually emptied the category and blanked the category page:
[1],
[2]. That's not right and these other categories should be tagged with a template and listed here if they are to be nominated with this nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Question. Are there any members of the category that are actually notable as missionaries? I would support keeping the category if it was emptied of all members other than those notable for being missionaries, but, as the nominator notes, evangelism is a big thing in the LDS Church, with ~1/3 of Mormon men being missionaries...I clicked on about ten members of the category and it's not a defining feature for any of them.
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It is hard to have categories where we say "this aplies to lots of people, but we only want to put a few of those people in it". We do not say "there are lots of Harvard Univeristy alumni, but we should only put in that category people who that s central to their notability". In general people can be put in categories that do not directly relate to what makes them notable. I actually deliberately did not put Huntman in the
Category:American Mormon missionaries at one point because due to his being US Ambassador to China this might be interpreted as implying he was funtioning as a Mormon missionary currently. Mormon missionary in Foo has the clear advantage of identifying the person with where they were when serving as a full-time missionary, which clearly shows that if they are Amercans in say
Category:Mormon missionaries in Japan it is clear they are not still a missionary. This current category has that problem. Also what do you do with
Charles A. Callis, an Irish-born man who joined
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at about age 10 in
Liverpool, than immigrated to Utah, married a Utah woman (who happens to be my great-great aunt, but that is besides the point) and then spent 20+ years as a missionary and then mission president in the Southern States mission.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
My new listing is an example of why breaking this down by nationality does not mae sense.
Category:Ghanaian Latter Day Saints only has 5 entries. Of those 2 are also in
Category:Ghanaian Mormon missionaries although since
Emmanual Abu Kissi was a counselor in the mission presidency and then acting mission president during "The Freeze" when Ghana banned all activities of the Church in the country, whether he even belongs in this ategory is hard to say, but if he does it becomes broader and even less disticntive than Roscelese's figures would suggest.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
More thoughts: 2 years is actually overstating how long many missionaries serve. 18 months if they are sister missionaries and variable times with senior missions. Wives of mission presidents, such as
Heidi S. Swinton and
Barbara W. Winder serve for three years and are called as missionaries and there are other exemtions, but 2 years at a time is the maximum for proably 90% of missionaries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
In the case of French Latter Day Saints the category has 4 pages, and then there are two more in French Mormon missionaries which would give us a total of 6. Spilting the category just does not make sense at that size.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
In the case of the Chinese/Hong Kong categories there is only 1 (one) article in all four categories that currently exist. That is, in all 4 categories combined there is one article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
in the case of the Korean/South Korean formulation it is unclear why the Korean level exists. All people are just at the South Korean level. I am not sure if I can make that nomination here, but that seems to be the logical action to take at this time. If there become notable North Korean Latter Day Saints in the future we can revist the situation then, but right now it seems we have unnecessary levels in categorization going on.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
However in many Christian denominations missionaries are a defined group who serve for long periods of time, normally at least a decade. Under that situation the system makes sense, but with the Mormon missionary system the classification system as it exists now does not make sense. At a minimum it seems we should designate these as categories where people go in both the category and the parents category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, my point about missionaries by place served being a more useful category scheme to some extent answers Olfactory's point. We would under these nominations keep the missionaries by place served categories, and those also are in the missionaries tree, so we would not by these upmergings remove anyone from the missionary tree, with the possible exemption of a few people where it is said they served a mission for
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but not specified where they served. In that case it is hard to see how their mission is inportant enough to categorize them by, if no one knows where they went.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep all the way they are. Not all people who have been Mormon missionaries are also currently Latter Day Saints, so that would be less (or not) accurate. Also, the point made by Good Ol’factory is a valid one. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WikiProject Japan!18:18, 20 May 2011 (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:Johnson Bible College alumni
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:Programming constructs
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 Programming constructs are a proper subset of programming concepts and should be kept separate as presently done. "Programming contructs" is used in the ordinary vocabulary of IT staff.
Hmains (
talk)
03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I actually should have proposed "Programming constructs" for renaming, but had already created "Programming language concepts" before I realized this. I think is a more accurate and established name for describing the articles currently in the category "Programming constructs" (see e.g. some of the titles at
Programming language#Further reading. When I hear the term "Programming constructs", I'm reminded more of design patters and concepts like
Duff's device, which are currently not listed in this category. —Ruud11:22, 29 April 2011 (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:Vocal-instrumental duet albums
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've cleared out Getz/Gilberto as that transparently isn't a duet album (unless "Albums with two surnames in the title"). But others do fit the category (Evans-Bennett etc) and one could argue for broader works fitting under the category; for example electropop (
Suicide,
Soft Cell,
Erasure,
Tarwater, etc) or German Lieder (although already under
Category:Lieder).
AllyD (
talk)
07:56, 9 April 2011 (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:Formal semantics
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: There isn't really a field called "Formal semantics of everything". There are formal semantic approaches in (formal) logic, programming languages, and linguistics. The main article was turned into a disambiguation. The category is too broad to be useful;
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.
Tijfo098 (
talk)
12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I get the point but I feel there's still some link between the three topics on the disambiguation page. These topics have developed into meaningful and almost entirely separate subfields of logic, theoretical computer science and linguistics but they have strong common historical roots. I could be convinced to delete this cat but it certainly won't be on the grounds of
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Formal semantics is 3 distinct but so-named fields. If either or all of the fields are category worthy, categories should be named that specify the category is for Formal symantics in logic, or in programming languages or in linguistics.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
Keep. There are important shared meaning elements that warrant inclusion in a common category, and likewise support Pichpich's rationale based on historical derivation of the now-distinct branches from a common root set of concepts. – OhioStandard (
talk)11:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Could you given some concrete examples of supposedly "shared meaning elements" (I can only even guess what you mean by this)? —Ruud11:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Or you could have used the web to discover that it's a term from lexicography. For example, say, declare, maintain, infer, imply, state, suggest, recommend, vouch, intuit aren't synonyms, but they carry multiple elements of meaning in common, e.g. "to communicate" is one. Now that you have the definition, you should be able to generate as many concrete examples as you like. Cheers, – OhioStandard (
talk)23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
You're still making absolutely no sense to me. Could you try expressing yourself more clearly? I assume your intended meaning is something along the lines of "the three distinct field, all named formal semantics, share a number of concepts and thus articles". However, unless you can show me a number of articles for which this is the case, I'm going to claim this is not true. —Ruud16:00, 2 May 2011 (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:Depictions of Genghis Khan on song
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 or Delete. One entry only and concur that it is needlessly obscure, also inappropriate name, if anything it should be "Depictions of Genghis Khan in song". The category's creator has a long history of creating these inappropriate and/or misnamed categories.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It also means "to portray or describe in words", according to the
Oxford English Dictionary (and most dictionaries), and is often used that way. The WP article focuses on a very specific aspect of the word. The "depiction" part of the category isn't the problem.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm ok with the upmerge. Depiction has a much wider meaning than what the en.wiki depiction article suggests. (This is off-topic but that article is a mess)
Pichpich (
talk)
21:29, 1 May 2011 (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:Famous seals
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.
Alternate renaming in general wikipedia should use terms that users are familiar with in titles. In actual use people use seal to include sea lions. I would suggest renaming to
Category:Famous seals (animals) because if one goes to the article
seal one will find a great many things besides the animal listed there. The current naming of the category suggests it might be for well-known stamps of authority or maybe for the 14 people with the last name of Seal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:23, 28 April 2011 (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.
Category:Famous animals
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.
Support change to
Category:Individual animals. Both "famous" and "notable" are discouraged. If they are not notable there will not be an article for them. The goal here is to make it clear that these categories are for a specific animal, not where you put articles on a breed or species.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Use "Individual animals". Famous and notable do not discern if they are about the class of animal as a whole or and individual. Pandas are famous animals, all Great Pandas. Great White Sharks as a group are notable.
65.94.45.160 (
talk)
04:50, 29 April 2011 (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:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations
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: Not an encyclopedic category. Simply serves to support the POV that a rabbinical ordination can be combined with an occupation.
JFW |
T@lk20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't know where you're from Debresser, but this issue is one of the main bones of contention between
haredim and the secular in Israel. Ask any black roshei yeshiva and you will almost alway get the answer that boys must stay in learning without taking qualifications, and when ,married better if the wife works to support the family. The hardeim are in poverty b/c employment is not encouarged by their leaders.
Chesdovi (
talk)
12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Reform? What is a haredi rabbi doing on the internet? Only heter according to gedolim is for business. Lubavitch semicha doesn't exactly count.
Chesdovi (
talk)
20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable cat, showing that there were great rabbis who had a livelihood to support thier failies instead of becoming a burden to society and relying on state handouts.
Chesdovi (
talk)
12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Note that this user was the original creator of this category, who continues to populate it even while this dicsussion is continuing.
Debresser (
talk)
14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Employment is frowed upon in modern day haredi orthodoxy. This cat shows that there were previous Judaic sages who supported themsleves, in direct opposition to the trend nowadays.
Chesdovi (
talk)
20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I would point out to OhioStandard that saying "this is more interesting thatn this other category (that does not exists) would be" makes no sense. I also fail to see why it is more interesting to have a category of Orthodox Rabbis who had other occupations than of Catholic Priests. If we were discussing a list I could understand it being more interesting, the rabbis other occupations might be more interesting, but in a category you just have people not anything about them. This category is about a non-defining intersection. This is almost as bad as a category named "people who have African and other ancestries" and then we thrown in people with Hawaiian, Irish and Cherokee ancestors. If this was
Category:Orthodox Jewish rabbis who were laywers and we had a bucnh of sister categories things might make sense, but as it stands this is just a people who were and also were not a given thing. To follow my above listing this could also allow us to put those Orthodox Jews who were also lawyers in this category and in the
Category:Lawyers who practiced another occupation. We want to nip this category in the bud. It almost seems to be one that could be listed as an example of "Categories not to create". Some of the above given statements of the creator also give me the feeling this is a POV-pushing category to be used as part of his broader attacks on the Heredim and their world-view. I actually agree that in general religious leaders should not be paid full-time, I am a Mormon afterall and virtually none of our leaders are paid, but I can see POV-pushing for what it is and think we need to delete categories that exist to POV-push.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:30, 3 May 2011 (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.
People who died in Nazi concentration camps and Nazi Concentration Camp victims by camp
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 current set-up also creates the problem that the victims of the geneocidal attacks on the Jews and Gypsies, and the victims of the attempts by the Nazis to slaughter the intelligentsia of Poland to make the Poles into a people more easily enslaved, are not clearly at any level distinguished from those who were killed because they proactively resisted Nazi rule. The focus on those killed in camps is ignoring people slughtered by mass shooting by the Eisatzgruppen and other deaths that were part of the "Final Solution" or the genocide of the Gypsies or other orchestrated mass slaughters that did not occur in camps.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
keep This is about the people dying in the camps and is significant as such. There are already broader categories covering the people killed by the Nazis in other places than the camps. This distintion should be kept.
Hmains (
talk)
02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep The idea that "Nazi concentration camp" is a euphemism is news to me and probably 99% of the world. In fact the Nazi atrocities pretty much erased the original meaning of the term "concentration camp".
Pichpich (
talk)
20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep That these individuals died in a concentration camp is a strong defining characteristic.
Alansohn (
talk)
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:Nazi Concentration Camp Victims by Occupation
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.
Nominators rational - Concentration Camps is an ill-defined term. The Death or extermination camps where the vast majority of people killed in the Holocaust died, specifically the gas champers, were only euphamistically called concentration camps, they were not such. There were also people lined up and shot by the einsatzgruppen who never went to camps, and people who died in other situations and conditions that did not make it to camps or did not die in the camps but would be counted as holocaust victims.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
keep This is about the victims in the camps and is significant as such. There are already broader categories covering the victims in other places than the camps. This distinction should be kept.
Hmains (
talk)
02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Why are victims in the camps notable by occupation, but victims of the holocaust overall are not notable by occupation? Also you are ignoring my point that most of these people died in death camps, not "concentration camps".
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep but only because it's a parent to the category structure. Reconsider the concept behind the structure. I will admit I am no expert on Nazi concentration camp practices but I have to wonder whether the people sorted based on being of a particular occupation and dying in a camp were in the camps because of their occupation. If it turns out that there are great swaths of people who were killed in the camps because they were lawyers or opera singers or pharmacologists, then fine. If not then my feeling is that categories for the intersection of "occupation" and "killed in a Nazi camp" should not exist.
Harley Hudson (
talk)
04:03, 30 April 2011 (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:American Mormon missionaries and other Fooian Mormon missionaries
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.
Nominators rational - Mormon missionaries in general serve for two years. A large portion of Mormons serve as missionaries at one point in their life. For most of the people in this category their having served a mission is not the main way even their being members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been expressed. Beyond this we have the question of whether "Mormon" should just designate members of that Church, all members of the Churches grouped as part of the Latter-day Saint movement, or some sub-set of members of the Latter-day Saint movement. There is nothing significant gained by having this as a sub-category of
Category:American Latter Day Saints.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Having been a Mormon missionary is almost always relatively defining for those who were. If it's not defining for a given person that was a Mormon missionary, they don't have to be placed in the category. Mormon churches that are not the
LDS Church, such as Mormon fundamentalists, do not send out full-time missionaries, so I see little chance of confusion by use the term "Mormon missionaries".
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. For at least one of the Fooian Mormon missionaries categories, the nominator manually emptied the category and blanked the category page:
[1],
[2]. That's not right and these other categories should be tagged with a template and listed here if they are to be nominated with this nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Question. Are there any members of the category that are actually notable as missionaries? I would support keeping the category if it was emptied of all members other than those notable for being missionaries, but, as the nominator notes, evangelism is a big thing in the LDS Church, with ~1/3 of Mormon men being missionaries...I clicked on about ten members of the category and it's not a defining feature for any of them.
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It is hard to have categories where we say "this aplies to lots of people, but we only want to put a few of those people in it". We do not say "there are lots of Harvard Univeristy alumni, but we should only put in that category people who that s central to their notability". In general people can be put in categories that do not directly relate to what makes them notable. I actually deliberately did not put Huntman in the
Category:American Mormon missionaries at one point because due to his being US Ambassador to China this might be interpreted as implying he was funtioning as a Mormon missionary currently. Mormon missionary in Foo has the clear advantage of identifying the person with where they were when serving as a full-time missionary, which clearly shows that if they are Amercans in say
Category:Mormon missionaries in Japan it is clear they are not still a missionary. This current category has that problem. Also what do you do with
Charles A. Callis, an Irish-born man who joined
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at about age 10 in
Liverpool, than immigrated to Utah, married a Utah woman (who happens to be my great-great aunt, but that is besides the point) and then spent 20+ years as a missionary and then mission president in the Southern States mission.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
My new listing is an example of why breaking this down by nationality does not mae sense.
Category:Ghanaian Latter Day Saints only has 5 entries. Of those 2 are also in
Category:Ghanaian Mormon missionaries although since
Emmanual Abu Kissi was a counselor in the mission presidency and then acting mission president during "The Freeze" when Ghana banned all activities of the Church in the country, whether he even belongs in this ategory is hard to say, but if he does it becomes broader and even less disticntive than Roscelese's figures would suggest.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
More thoughts: 2 years is actually overstating how long many missionaries serve. 18 months if they are sister missionaries and variable times with senior missions. Wives of mission presidents, such as
Heidi S. Swinton and
Barbara W. Winder serve for three years and are called as missionaries and there are other exemtions, but 2 years at a time is the maximum for proably 90% of missionaries.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
In the case of French Latter Day Saints the category has 4 pages, and then there are two more in French Mormon missionaries which would give us a total of 6. Spilting the category just does not make sense at that size.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
In the case of the Chinese/Hong Kong categories there is only 1 (one) article in all four categories that currently exist. That is, in all 4 categories combined there is one article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
in the case of the Korean/South Korean formulation it is unclear why the Korean level exists. All people are just at the South Korean level. I am not sure if I can make that nomination here, but that seems to be the logical action to take at this time. If there become notable North Korean Latter Day Saints in the future we can revist the situation then, but right now it seems we have unnecessary levels in categorization going on.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
However in many Christian denominations missionaries are a defined group who serve for long periods of time, normally at least a decade. Under that situation the system makes sense, but with the Mormon missionary system the classification system as it exists now does not make sense. At a minimum it seems we should designate these as categories where people go in both the category and the parents category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, my point about missionaries by place served being a more useful category scheme to some extent answers Olfactory's point. We would under these nominations keep the missionaries by place served categories, and those also are in the missionaries tree, so we would not by these upmergings remove anyone from the missionary tree, with the possible exemption of a few people where it is said they served a mission for
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but not specified where they served. In that case it is hard to see how their mission is inportant enough to categorize them by, if no one knows where they went.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep all the way they are. Not all people who have been Mormon missionaries are also currently Latter Day Saints, so that would be less (or not) accurate. Also, the point made by Good Ol’factory is a valid one. ···
日本穣? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WikiProject Japan!18:18, 20 May 2011 (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:Johnson Bible College alumni
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:Programming constructs
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 Programming constructs are a proper subset of programming concepts and should be kept separate as presently done. "Programming contructs" is used in the ordinary vocabulary of IT staff.
Hmains (
talk)
03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I actually should have proposed "Programming constructs" for renaming, but had already created "Programming language concepts" before I realized this. I think is a more accurate and established name for describing the articles currently in the category "Programming constructs" (see e.g. some of the titles at
Programming language#Further reading. When I hear the term "Programming constructs", I'm reminded more of design patters and concepts like
Duff's device, which are currently not listed in this category. —Ruud11:22, 29 April 2011 (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:Vocal-instrumental duet albums
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've cleared out Getz/Gilberto as that transparently isn't a duet album (unless "Albums with two surnames in the title"). But others do fit the category (Evans-Bennett etc) and one could argue for broader works fitting under the category; for example electropop (
Suicide,
Soft Cell,
Erasure,
Tarwater, etc) or German Lieder (although already under
Category:Lieder).
AllyD (
talk)
07:56, 9 April 2011 (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:Formal semantics
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: There isn't really a field called "Formal semantics of everything". There are formal semantic approaches in (formal) logic, programming languages, and linguistics. The main article was turned into a disambiguation. The category is too broad to be useful;
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.
Tijfo098 (
talk)
12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I get the point but I feel there's still some link between the three topics on the disambiguation page. These topics have developed into meaningful and almost entirely separate subfields of logic, theoretical computer science and linguistics but they have strong common historical roots. I could be convinced to delete this cat but it certainly won't be on the grounds of
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - Formal semantics is 3 distinct but so-named fields. If either or all of the fields are category worthy, categories should be named that specify the category is for Formal symantics in logic, or in programming languages or in linguistics.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
Keep. There are important shared meaning elements that warrant inclusion in a common category, and likewise support Pichpich's rationale based on historical derivation of the now-distinct branches from a common root set of concepts. – OhioStandard (
talk)11:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Could you given some concrete examples of supposedly "shared meaning elements" (I can only even guess what you mean by this)? —Ruud11:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Or you could have used the web to discover that it's a term from lexicography. For example, say, declare, maintain, infer, imply, state, suggest, recommend, vouch, intuit aren't synonyms, but they carry multiple elements of meaning in common, e.g. "to communicate" is one. Now that you have the definition, you should be able to generate as many concrete examples as you like. Cheers, – OhioStandard (
talk)23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)reply
You're still making absolutely no sense to me. Could you try expressing yourself more clearly? I assume your intended meaning is something along the lines of "the three distinct field, all named formal semantics, share a number of concepts and thus articles". However, unless you can show me a number of articles for which this is the case, I'm going to claim this is not true. —Ruud16:00, 2 May 2011 (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:Depictions of Genghis Khan on song
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 or Delete. One entry only and concur that it is needlessly obscure, also inappropriate name, if anything it should be "Depictions of Genghis Khan in song". The category's creator has a long history of creating these inappropriate and/or misnamed categories.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It also means "to portray or describe in words", according to the
Oxford English Dictionary (and most dictionaries), and is often used that way. The WP article focuses on a very specific aspect of the word. The "depiction" part of the category isn't the problem.
Voceditenore (
talk)
13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm ok with the upmerge. Depiction has a much wider meaning than what the en.wiki depiction article suggests. (This is off-topic but that article is a mess)
Pichpich (
talk)
21:29, 1 May 2011 (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:Famous seals
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.
Alternate renaming in general wikipedia should use terms that users are familiar with in titles. In actual use people use seal to include sea lions. I would suggest renaming to
Category:Famous seals (animals) because if one goes to the article
seal one will find a great many things besides the animal listed there. The current naming of the category suggests it might be for well-known stamps of authority or maybe for the 14 people with the last name of Seal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:23, 28 April 2011 (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.