- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is misnamed; it does not contain nuclear reactors attacked by Israel, but military operations in which Israel attacked nuclear reactors. I suppose we could rename it as Category:Israeli operations against nuclear reactors (compare to Category:Israeli operations against terror), but it's probably safe to delete per WP:SMALLCAT. BDD ( talk) 23:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete small cat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as misnamed and small cat. I would suggest merging but both articles are already adequately covered by many other categories, so I do not think we need to merge anywhere. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify per nom -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hm? I didn't advocate or even suggest listifying. I don't think it would be particularly appropriate here; it reminds me of the recently deleted Countries that Britain has attacked. Was this intended for the entry below, or did you want to rename it per my suggestion? -- BDD ( talk) 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I am looking at Category:Ships by conflict (a concept that could be seen as somewhat comparable) and not seeing anything like Category:Ships attacked by country. I went to look for any sort of "locations by conflict" (like church buildings or parks), but I'm not finding any. If it were more than just 2 articles, I'd suggest listifying. But as long as each article links to the other, I think we can safely delete this category. - jc37 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: listify and delete. delldot ∇. 07:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in the United States
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Alabama
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in California
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Maryland
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Oklahoma
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Nebraska
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in New York
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in New Jersey
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Virginia
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Pennsylvania
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Ohio
- Nominator's rationale First off, we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. These categories mix lots of iddferent things. Several of the places involved are named Logan, which is a name that was used by some Native American people, but in its origin is not "Native American". Secondly, several of these places were named after rivers, which may have Native American deirved names, but the naming of the place after the river was the decision of European Americans. Worst of all in the California category were have a case of a place named after a river in Pennsylvania, with no evidence that there were any Native Americans involved in transporting the name to California. From a linguistic standpoint, it is not clear that the way this schema is set up makes sense, even without the totally bizarre inclusion of Logan. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; no objection to listifying if each entry has an appropriate WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom and per a variant on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (categorising via a property of the name of a place, rather than a property of the place). Oculi ( talk) 11:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify -- Identifying places with a Native American origin is (or should be) significant area of study. It should be possible to convert a list to a table, with further columns for the mening of the name and the language from which it came. This will in turn indicate the area occupied by that tribe. I have no idea how far advacned placename studies are in America, but it is a singificant area of study in England, from which historians draw conclusions. The fact that a place is named after a river that bears a native-derived name is not significant, not would it be objectionable if the native-derived name were compounded with one from elsewhere (e.g. English). On the other hand, I would support the exclusion of names taken to California by colonists from the East Coast states, but that is a matter of editing the resultant article. I presume there are names in California derived from tribes native there. The lack of WP:RS initially should be no objection to inclusion in the list. Dealing with erroneous inclusions is a matter of editing the resultant article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify - Peterkingon said everything I wanted to say. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify -I support Peter Kingiron's proposal for putting this in a tabular form. Further, I think a name of Native American origin should be included, even if subsequent settlers actually transported the name to another geographic location. The tabular format should have separate columns to identify the (English) definition of the native name, the language of origin, etc. Bruin2 ( talk) 23:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 16#Category:Place names of French origin in the United States. This has the advantage of adding context and citations. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Logan Fontenelle.
- Nominator's rationale Besides the article on the person, the contents of the category are places named after him, or in many cases, possibly named after him, since in some of the cases the articles do not say who the place was named for. We generally do not group things together just because they were named after a given person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom and per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Some could be added to Fontenelle. Oculi ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete little different than Category:Cities named for Stalin, deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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 to
Category:1st-century Christianity. I will check that nothing is lost improperly from the New Testament category tree. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
13:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:New Testament history to Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity
- Nominator's rationale: The Template:Centuries in Christianity lists the category alongside 21 other centuries as if it was a century in its own right. It seems to occupy some twilight-zone temporal position. On the assumption that the last book of the New Testament was written before the end of the 1st century, then this category can only occupy the 1st century. The proposed candidate covers the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries so it fits neatly into that structure. If it is felt that it merits its own category, then Early Ancient history of Christianity would have to be re-defined to confine itself to just the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I would not be in favour of this as it breaks with academic treatment of the topic. Laurel Lodged ( talk)
- Upmerge to Category:New Testament, which is the more appropriate category. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I can see nothing that would prevent
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity having New Testament as another parent. While it would not be the primary tree structure, it would be a useful addition. In that context then, I think that Presidentman's suggestion becomes moot; nothing in the proposal as it stands would prevent the New Testament happening.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment—this (parenting Early Ancient to New Testament) would be inappropriate as the New Testament period is a subset of of this strange construct "Early Ancient". Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I can see nothing that would prevent
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity having New Testament as another parent. While it would not be the primary tree structure, it would be a useful addition. In that context then, I think that Presidentman's suggestion becomes moot; nothing in the proposal as it stands would prevent the New Testament happening.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:History of the New Testament and prune accordingly; the history of the drafting/inclusion-exclusion debates is a noteworthy category the two categories presented as merger targets would make nice parents to the renamed and pruned category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Query I'm not sure that I understand Carlossuarez46's proposal. Would pruning have the effect of have one category called "History of the New Testament" (whose scope was limited in effect to the 1st century) and another category called "Early Ancient history of Christianity" (whose scope was limited in effect to the 2nd century)? If so, how would such a schema differ from having Category:1st-century Christianity and Category:2nd-century Christianity? Would such a scenario not introduce rampant redundancy? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Split into Category:Apostolic Age and Category:Ante-Nicene Period to match the correct main articles and repopulate accordingly. These are the standard divisions used in the field. Mangoe ( talk) 02:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Query If this split proposal was successful, where would it leave
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity? Would it remain on its own? Or would it be renamed to
Category:Ante-Nicene Period?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mango, if you have a verifiable reliable source for that assertion, then I have a support in my pocket, just for you : ) - Otherwise, after looking things over, I support a rename per nom. - jc37 07:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Query If this split proposal was successful, where would it leave
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity? Would it remain on its own? Or would it be renamed to
Category:Ante-Nicene Period?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:New Testament. Mangoe's categories might be creatable, but not all the stuff clearly would go there. There might also be a possibility of a category for the creation of the New Testament, but little if any of the current contents would go there. The current contents best go into the New Testament category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose We already have a category on "Category:1st-century Christianity". Why merge a category which lists 1st-century people, events, and groups into a category which also covers two other centuries? Dimadick ( talk) 10:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This sounds more like a propsal to merge
Category:New Testament history into
Category:1st-century Christianity. I think that it has become clear from all the above discussion that we have 3 candidate names for an entity that is only performing 1 task. They are
Category:1st-century Christianity,
Category:New Testament history and
Category:Apostolic Age. We could decide to choose just one as the prime vehicle and the others merged into it. Seeing as "1st-century" is part of a long, consistent tree structure, that would get my vote, even over my own proposal here. In which case,
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity could remain as it is covering 2 centuries, reporting to its own parent structure of
Category:History of Christianity by period.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there is also a proposal to merge to Category:New Testament. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This sounds more like a propsal to merge
Category:New Testament history into
Category:1st-century Christianity. I think that it has become clear from all the above discussion that we have 3 candidate names for an entity that is only performing 1 task. They are
Category:1st-century Christianity,
Category:New Testament history and
Category:Apostolic Age. We could decide to choose just one as the prime vehicle and the others merged into it. Seeing as "1st-century" is part of a long, consistent tree structure, that would get my vote, even over my own proposal here. In which case,
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity could remain as it is covering 2 centuries, reporting to its own parent structure of
Category:History of Christianity by period.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge into something; the best chooice is Category:1st-century Christianity. tahc chat 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Category:1st-century Christianity, which is roughly the same thing. I do not think there is anything to purge from it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Split Per Mangoe. This is, indeed, the academic division of these two. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 10:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the newly created Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity. All this category does is add an un-needed layer in this tree. And leave Category:New Testament history right where it is. It is parented correctly and doesn't need upmerging in some "make-work" scheme. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion of
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity is not in scope in this discussion. That's a whole other CFD.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- As Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity is proposed as the target for this merge, it is entirely within scope to propose the deletion of the target as a part of cleaning up the mess. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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 to Category:Number-one singles in India and purge as needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is for songs which were number one for the week for a specific radio program. This is not a proper criterion for categorizing. Buck Winston ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and welcome to Category:Number-one singles. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete placing top on some obscure radio program is not worth categorizing by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please backup your statement of calling
a 42 year long weekly countdown show "some obscure radio program". §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
04:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. After all, someone has set up sub-categories within
Category:Number-one singles in the United States for separate charts run by some obscure organisation in that country. "Obscure" appears to be a word meaning "something we don't have in my country".
–
Fayenatic
L
ondon
- Good point. After all, someone has set up sub-categories within
Category:Number-one singles in the United States for separate charts run by some obscure organisation in that country. "Obscure" appears to be a word meaning "something we don't have in my country".
- Please backup your statement of calling
a 42 year long weekly countdown show "some obscure radio program". §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
04:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Binaca Geetmala number-one singles following the category structure for US/Mexico/Brazil etc, or at worst upmerge to Category:Number-one singles in India. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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: rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Old Testament saints to Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament
- Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity, and being specific about which religion is meant. Even though the individuals were not known as "Christians" in their lifetime, the meaning will be sufficiently clear i.e. people venerated by Christians. This CFD nomination follows a consensus at Category talk:Old Testament saints, where this suggestion was made by user:John Carter. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Also, could we get a decision that people in this category should not be put in specific denominational categories. Since the people involved did not even identify as Christians, at least per any clear source we have, it makes even less sense to categorize them by specific denominations of Christianity. This category alone should meet the need to show that they are identified as Christian Saints, without putting them in specific denominational categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Probably not. The point of denomination categories for saints is to record the denominations that venerate the person, not the denomination of which they were a member. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per consensus at talk page. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Old Testament figures recognized as saints by Christians. thats what they are; as far as I know, there are no Christians in the old testament - Christ didn't appear until the New Testament. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I regard this as a very peculiar category. Any one recognised as holy (i.e. a saint) in the Old Testament is likely to be recognised as such by Jews. Most OT categories got moved to "Hebrew scriptures" or something like that because they are scritptures for Jews as well. I wonder whether the answer is that this should be deleted, but perhpas some one should check that all articles have appropriate other categories first. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Old Testament figures venerated in Christianity. Calling these people "saints" is a misnomer. As others have pointed out saints in Christianity are Christians and none of the patriachs, prophets and various wives listed in this category and the female sub-category can truly be said to be Christian. Some argument could be made for the archangels in the list, but, as both Michael and Gabriel also appear in the New Testament and Raphael only appears in Tobit, I think this would be a red herring. Another good clue to recognition of sainthood in the church is the dedication of churches & schools to the particular saint. I can't think of any St. Moses, St. Joel, St. Habbakuk or St. Bathsheba to name a few from the category.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
05:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Considering category Category:Anglican saints includes people who were most definately not Anglicans, including at least one person involved in the counter-reformation and thus actively fighting Protestantism, we seem to have accepted that Saints are anyone a Christian Church calls Saints, and that events in the actual person's lives are not relevant to whether or not they are saints. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Old Testament Christian saints per the subcats of the parent cats. Weakly support Category:Christian saints of the Old Testament ("of", not "from". ) - jc37 07:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the institution should use a comma, as its official name was simply the Royal Military College, although it was frequently referred to as Sandhurst, where it was located (and the comma is always used when the latter is added to the former). To clarify, the current Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) was formed after the Second World World War by the amalgamation of the Royal Military College and the Royal Military Academy (at Woolwich) on the site of the former. This is not the same institution as the RMAS, but one of two predecessors. I previously tried to speedy this (it is only a comma after all), but it was opposed by another editor who appeared to confuse the two institutions. When the difference was pointed out to him, he continued to oppose it, apparently because he still misunderstood. There are separate Category:Graduates of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Category:Graduates of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the article is at
Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Should we not rename the category to match the article?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did I not just explain this above? It is certainly true that the Royal Military College, Sandhurst should have its own article (as its sister institution, the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, already does), but that doesn't affect the category. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Category:People associated with the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst is nicely organised to give an overview of the history and there is already Category:Governors of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. Oculi ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to Category:Graduates of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. This is not the same institution as the current Royal Military Academy Sandhurst; it is one of several predecessor bodies. The category name shoukd reflect the name of the institution from which these people graduated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Also rename article and amend its text to add a comma before "Sandhurst", passim. Similar changes need to be made for RMC, Woolwich; RNC, Dartmouth; and RNC Greenwich; perhpas a few more. The argument on having separate alumni categories for predecessors is contrary to WP precedents. We have a long consensus that alumni of renamed or merged colleges are deemed to be alumni of the successor. I would not advocate this being carried to the lenghts of Woolwich alumni being added to the Sandhurst category: though technically they may have merged, we should treat Woolwich as having closed (for this purpose).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I personally deplore the poor English, it is a sad truth that the current institution is usually referred to as the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst without the comma. This is not, however, the case for the predecessor. I also think that separate categories should be maintained: the previous Sandhurst trained only infantry and cavalry officers, whereas the current Sandhurst trains all officers. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and per BHG. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, because all articles moved into Category:Suzhou stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Make cat 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: rename.
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Photographs by war to Category:War photographs
- Nominator's rationale: Even if we want all these underpopulated subcats, new articles on notable images (such as Joseph Patrick Dwyer, image just added to article) could not be placed in this category w/o first being given a cat based on which war they were from. better to have the name allow for both categories and loose articles. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename – it is the obvious name for its contents. As the nom says, it allows war photos to be collected without specifying the war, and also allows other subcat schemes ( Category:War photographs by paradigm, Category:War photographs by ideology, Category:War photographs by subtheme etc). Oculi ( talk) 12:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: rename to
Category:Photographs by topic. The opposer did not mention having any opposition to that suggestion, others are for it.
delldot
∇.
08:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Photographs by theme to Category:Photographs by subject
- Nominator's rationale: Seems a more precise word, theme is often used for abstract ideas, like love or loss Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or 'by topic' – looking at Category:Works by topic there are several synonyms for 'topic' included amongst the schemes gathered together, and then there are 'genre', 'discipline' as well. It is a pity one cannot see at a glance who the creators of these myriads might be, but one suspects the dread hand of the mysterious Stefanomione. Oculi ( talk) 14:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the more mysterious ones weren't my creations :
Category:Historiography of specific subject matter,
Category:Academic journals by subject area, ... But I agree, the younger categories 'genre' and 'discipline' need a clean-up brush.
Stefanomione (
talk)
16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks – this seems to be the work of User:Haymouse whose forays into category creation seem to have been glittering but all too brief. As a first creation, Category:Historiography of specific subject matter is precociously brilliant. Oculi ( talk) 19:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the more mysterious ones weren't my creations :
Category:Historiography of specific subject matter,
Category:Academic journals by subject area, ... But I agree, the younger categories 'genre' and 'discipline' need a clean-up brush.
Stefanomione (
talk)
16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - "subject" is who/what is being photographed, not by what the photograph represents (to whom?). So a photo of the Eifel Tower's subject is the Eifel Tower, not engineering works. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment i think carloss is correct, so i would then go with "by topic" instead. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: navboxify and delete. The task of creating the navbox is listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, please feel free to help out with it. delldot ∇. 07:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only four articles, all pretty easily navigable. Sidenote: not named after main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The parent categories of this category are rather inappropriate. "Fictional religions" and "religion in science fiction" make it sound as an element of fiction. While the articles Jediism and Jedi census phenomenon are about real-life people who self-identify as followers of a Jedi religion. Dimadick ( talk) 13:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Selective upmerge, replace with template: They are not all navigable at the moment; Peter Lee (martial artist) (apparently a self-proclaimed founder of Jediism -- the citation is currently unavailable) is not linked from any of the others. Therefore the category has a function. However, I think a new Jedi navbox template would be better, with in-universe and real-world sections. As for the parent categories, the articles should be selectively upmerged before deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fine with "Navbox-ify" per FL above, and WP:CLN. - jc37 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: keep. Consensus exists that the current name is more objective, flexible and inclusive.
delldot
∇.
07:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations to Category:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
- Nominator's rationale: To match category main (C2D, but likely to be controversial). This category is more about the moral panic and mass hysteria around the allegations than the allegations themselves. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 02:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The current name is much more objective. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to match article names. This is supposed to be about allegations that fit into a specific phenomenon, not a generalized category to hold everything that could be interpreted to fit the title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Objective name is allegations; see hysteria to see what that's a loaded word - perhaps it should be put in the only use with caution category like terrorist. If we go with hysteria, do we get to categorize all those caught up in these day care things as "hysterical"? would seem the next logical move. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Present category seems more appropriate as I presume there are some articles about incidents with convictions even if some convictions (eg Peter Ellis) are often considered dubious. The category should be a subcategory of Category:Child sexual abuse as well as or instead of Category:Child care. Hugo999 ( talk) 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note there is at least one indisputable real case in this category now i.e. Amsterdam sex crimes case. And by the way, the shock if not moral panic here in Amsterdam was enormous: parents started to feel uncomfortable with men working in child day care centers. Even if this category is renamed there is a need for a category with allegations, because it is difficult to distinguish real and fake allegations. Andries ( talk) 14:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No activity from this vandal for years; also, WP:DENY. bd2412 T 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is misnamed; it does not contain nuclear reactors attacked by Israel, but military operations in which Israel attacked nuclear reactors. I suppose we could rename it as Category:Israeli operations against nuclear reactors (compare to Category:Israeli operations against terror), but it's probably safe to delete per WP:SMALLCAT. BDD ( talk) 23:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete small cat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as misnamed and small cat. I would suggest merging but both articles are already adequately covered by many other categories, so I do not think we need to merge anywhere. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify per nom -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hm? I didn't advocate or even suggest listifying. I don't think it would be particularly appropriate here; it reminds me of the recently deleted Countries that Britain has attacked. Was this intended for the entry below, or did you want to rename it per my suggestion? -- BDD ( talk) 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I am looking at Category:Ships by conflict (a concept that could be seen as somewhat comparable) and not seeing anything like Category:Ships attacked by country. I went to look for any sort of "locations by conflict" (like church buildings or parks), but I'm not finding any. If it were more than just 2 articles, I'd suggest listifying. But as long as each article links to the other, I think we can safely delete this category. - jc37 07:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: listify and delete. delldot ∇. 07:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in the United States
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Alabama
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in California
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Maryland
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Oklahoma
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Nebraska
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in New York
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in New Jersey
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Virginia
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Pennsylvania
- Delete Category:Place names of Native American origin in Ohio
- Nominator's rationale First off, we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. These categories mix lots of iddferent things. Several of the places involved are named Logan, which is a name that was used by some Native American people, but in its origin is not "Native American". Secondly, several of these places were named after rivers, which may have Native American deirved names, but the naming of the place after the river was the decision of European Americans. Worst of all in the California category were have a case of a place named after a river in Pennsylvania, with no evidence that there were any Native Americans involved in transporting the name to California. From a linguistic standpoint, it is not clear that the way this schema is set up makes sense, even without the totally bizarre inclusion of Logan. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; no objection to listifying if each entry has an appropriate WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom and per a variant on WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (categorising via a property of the name of a place, rather than a property of the place). Oculi ( talk) 11:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify -- Identifying places with a Native American origin is (or should be) significant area of study. It should be possible to convert a list to a table, with further columns for the mening of the name and the language from which it came. This will in turn indicate the area occupied by that tribe. I have no idea how far advacned placename studies are in America, but it is a singificant area of study in England, from which historians draw conclusions. The fact that a place is named after a river that bears a native-derived name is not significant, not would it be objectionable if the native-derived name were compounded with one from elsewhere (e.g. English). On the other hand, I would support the exclusion of names taken to California by colonists from the East Coast states, but that is a matter of editing the resultant article. I presume there are names in California derived from tribes native there. The lack of WP:RS initially should be no objection to inclusion in the list. Dealing with erroneous inclusions is a matter of editing the resultant article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify - Peterkingon said everything I wanted to say. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify -I support Peter Kingiron's proposal for putting this in a tabular form. Further, I think a name of Native American origin should be included, even if subsequent settlers actually transported the name to another geographic location. The tabular format should have separate columns to identify the (English) definition of the native name, the language of origin, etc. Bruin2 ( talk) 23:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Listify per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 16#Category:Place names of French origin in the United States. This has the advantage of adding context and citations. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Logan Fontenelle.
- Nominator's rationale Besides the article on the person, the contents of the category are places named after him, or in many cases, possibly named after him, since in some of the cases the articles do not say who the place was named for. We generally do not group things together just because they were named after a given person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom and per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Some could be added to Fontenelle. Oculi ( talk) 23:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete little different than Category:Cities named for Stalin, deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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 to
Category:1st-century Christianity. I will check that nothing is lost improperly from the New Testament category tree. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
13:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Propose upmerging Category:New Testament history to Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity
- Nominator's rationale: The Template:Centuries in Christianity lists the category alongside 21 other centuries as if it was a century in its own right. It seems to occupy some twilight-zone temporal position. On the assumption that the last book of the New Testament was written before the end of the 1st century, then this category can only occupy the 1st century. The proposed candidate covers the 1st, 2nd & 3rd centuries so it fits neatly into that structure. If it is felt that it merits its own category, then Early Ancient history of Christianity would have to be re-defined to confine itself to just the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I would not be in favour of this as it breaks with academic treatment of the topic. Laurel Lodged ( talk)
- Upmerge to Category:New Testament, which is the more appropriate category. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I can see nothing that would prevent
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity having New Testament as another parent. While it would not be the primary tree structure, it would be a useful addition. In that context then, I think that Presidentman's suggestion becomes moot; nothing in the proposal as it stands would prevent the New Testament happening.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment—this (parenting Early Ancient to New Testament) would be inappropriate as the New Testament period is a subset of of this strange construct "Early Ancient". Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I can see nothing that would prevent
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity having New Testament as another parent. While it would not be the primary tree structure, it would be a useful addition. In that context then, I think that Presidentman's suggestion becomes moot; nothing in the proposal as it stands would prevent the New Testament happening.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:History of the New Testament and prune accordingly; the history of the drafting/inclusion-exclusion debates is a noteworthy category the two categories presented as merger targets would make nice parents to the renamed and pruned category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Query I'm not sure that I understand Carlossuarez46's proposal. Would pruning have the effect of have one category called "History of the New Testament" (whose scope was limited in effect to the 1st century) and another category called "Early Ancient history of Christianity" (whose scope was limited in effect to the 2nd century)? If so, how would such a schema differ from having Category:1st-century Christianity and Category:2nd-century Christianity? Would such a scenario not introduce rampant redundancy? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Split into Category:Apostolic Age and Category:Ante-Nicene Period to match the correct main articles and repopulate accordingly. These are the standard divisions used in the field. Mangoe ( talk) 02:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Query If this split proposal was successful, where would it leave
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity? Would it remain on its own? Or would it be renamed to
Category:Ante-Nicene Period?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mango, if you have a verifiable reliable source for that assertion, then I have a support in my pocket, just for you : ) - Otherwise, after looking things over, I support a rename per nom. - jc37 07:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Query If this split proposal was successful, where would it leave
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity? Would it remain on its own? Or would it be renamed to
Category:Ante-Nicene Period?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:New Testament. Mangoe's categories might be creatable, but not all the stuff clearly would go there. There might also be a possibility of a category for the creation of the New Testament, but little if any of the current contents would go there. The current contents best go into the New Testament category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose We already have a category on "Category:1st-century Christianity". Why merge a category which lists 1st-century people, events, and groups into a category which also covers two other centuries? Dimadick ( talk) 10:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This sounds more like a propsal to merge
Category:New Testament history into
Category:1st-century Christianity. I think that it has become clear from all the above discussion that we have 3 candidate names for an entity that is only performing 1 task. They are
Category:1st-century Christianity,
Category:New Testament history and
Category:Apostolic Age. We could decide to choose just one as the prime vehicle and the others merged into it. Seeing as "1st-century" is part of a long, consistent tree structure, that would get my vote, even over my own proposal here. In which case,
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity could remain as it is covering 2 centuries, reporting to its own parent structure of
Category:History of Christianity by period.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there is also a proposal to merge to Category:New Testament. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This sounds more like a propsal to merge
Category:New Testament history into
Category:1st-century Christianity. I think that it has become clear from all the above discussion that we have 3 candidate names for an entity that is only performing 1 task. They are
Category:1st-century Christianity,
Category:New Testament history and
Category:Apostolic Age. We could decide to choose just one as the prime vehicle and the others merged into it. Seeing as "1st-century" is part of a long, consistent tree structure, that would get my vote, even over my own proposal here. In which case,
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity could remain as it is covering 2 centuries, reporting to its own parent structure of
Category:History of Christianity by period.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Upmerge into something; the best chooice is Category:1st-century Christianity. tahc chat 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Merge Category:1st-century Christianity, which is roughly the same thing. I do not think there is anything to purge from it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Split Per Mangoe. This is, indeed, the academic division of these two. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 10:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the newly created Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity. All this category does is add an un-needed layer in this tree. And leave Category:New Testament history right where it is. It is parented correctly and doesn't need upmerging in some "make-work" scheme. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion of
Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity is not in scope in this discussion. That's a whole other CFD.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- As Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity is proposed as the target for this merge, it is entirely within scope to propose the deletion of the target as a part of cleaning up the mess. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 07:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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 to Category:Number-one singles in India and purge as needed.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is for songs which were number one for the week for a specific radio program. This is not a proper criterion for categorizing. Buck Winston ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and welcome to Category:Number-one singles. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 03:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete placing top on some obscure radio program is not worth categorizing by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please backup your statement of calling
a 42 year long weekly countdown show "some obscure radio program". §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
04:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. After all, someone has set up sub-categories within
Category:Number-one singles in the United States for separate charts run by some obscure organisation in that country. "Obscure" appears to be a word meaning "something we don't have in my country".
–
Fayenatic
L
ondon
- Good point. After all, someone has set up sub-categories within
Category:Number-one singles in the United States for separate charts run by some obscure organisation in that country. "Obscure" appears to be a word meaning "something we don't have in my country".
- Please backup your statement of calling
a 42 year long weekly countdown show "some obscure radio program". §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
04:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Binaca Geetmala number-one singles following the category structure for US/Mexico/Brazil etc, or at worst upmerge to Category:Number-one singles in India. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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: rename.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Old Testament saints to Category:Christian saints from the Old Testament
- Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity, and being specific about which religion is meant. Even though the individuals were not known as "Christians" in their lifetime, the meaning will be sufficiently clear i.e. people venerated by Christians. This CFD nomination follows a consensus at Category talk:Old Testament saints, where this suggestion was made by user:John Carter. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Also, could we get a decision that people in this category should not be put in specific denominational categories. Since the people involved did not even identify as Christians, at least per any clear source we have, it makes even less sense to categorize them by specific denominations of Christianity. This category alone should meet the need to show that they are identified as Christian Saints, without putting them in specific denominational categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Probably not. The point of denomination categories for saints is to record the denominations that venerate the person, not the denomination of which they were a member. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per consensus at talk page. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Old Testament figures recognized as saints by Christians. thats what they are; as far as I know, there are no Christians in the old testament - Christ didn't appear until the New Testament. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I regard this as a very peculiar category. Any one recognised as holy (i.e. a saint) in the Old Testament is likely to be recognised as such by Jews. Most OT categories got moved to "Hebrew scriptures" or something like that because they are scritptures for Jews as well. I wonder whether the answer is that this should be deleted, but perhpas some one should check that all articles have appropriate other categories first. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Old Testament figures venerated in Christianity. Calling these people "saints" is a misnomer. As others have pointed out saints in Christianity are Christians and none of the patriachs, prophets and various wives listed in this category and the female sub-category can truly be said to be Christian. Some argument could be made for the archangels in the list, but, as both Michael and Gabriel also appear in the New Testament and Raphael only appears in Tobit, I think this would be a red herring. Another good clue to recognition of sainthood in the church is the dedication of churches & schools to the particular saint. I can't think of any St. Moses, St. Joel, St. Habbakuk or St. Bathsheba to name a few from the category.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
05:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Considering category Category:Anglican saints includes people who were most definately not Anglicans, including at least one person involved in the counter-reformation and thus actively fighting Protestantism, we seem to have accepted that Saints are anyone a Christian Church calls Saints, and that events in the actual person's lives are not relevant to whether or not they are saints. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Old Testament Christian saints per the subcats of the parent cats. Weakly support Category:Christian saints of the Old Testament ("of", not "from". ) - jc37 07:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of the institution should use a comma, as its official name was simply the Royal Military College, although it was frequently referred to as Sandhurst, where it was located (and the comma is always used when the latter is added to the former). To clarify, the current Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) was formed after the Second World World War by the amalgamation of the Royal Military College and the Royal Military Academy (at Woolwich) on the site of the former. This is not the same institution as the RMAS, but one of two predecessors. I previously tried to speedy this (it is only a comma after all), but it was opposed by another editor who appeared to confuse the two institutions. When the difference was pointed out to him, he continued to oppose it, apparently because he still misunderstood. There are separate Category:Graduates of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Category:Graduates of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the article is at
Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Should we not rename the category to match the article?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Did I not just explain this above? It is certainly true that the Royal Military College, Sandhurst should have its own article (as its sister institution, the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, already does), but that doesn't affect the category. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Category:People associated with the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst is nicely organised to give an overview of the history and there is already Category:Governors of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. Oculi ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to Category:Graduates of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. This is not the same institution as the current Royal Military Academy Sandhurst; it is one of several predecessor bodies. The category name shoukd reflect the name of the institution from which these people graduated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Also rename article and amend its text to add a comma before "Sandhurst", passim. Similar changes need to be made for RMC, Woolwich; RNC, Dartmouth; and RNC Greenwich; perhpas a few more. The argument on having separate alumni categories for predecessors is contrary to WP precedents. We have a long consensus that alumni of renamed or merged colleges are deemed to be alumni of the successor. I would not advocate this being carried to the lenghts of Woolwich alumni being added to the Sandhurst category: though technically they may have merged, we should treat Woolwich as having closed (for this purpose).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- While I personally deplore the poor English, it is a sad truth that the current institution is usually referred to as the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst without the comma. This is not, however, the case for the predecessor. I also think that separate categories should be maintained: the previous Sandhurst trained only infantry and cavalry officers, whereas the current Sandhurst trains all officers. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and per BHG. -- Qetuth ( talk) 01:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty, because all articles moved into Category:Suzhou stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Make cat 11:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: rename.
The Bushranger
One ping only
19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Photographs by war to Category:War photographs
- Nominator's rationale: Even if we want all these underpopulated subcats, new articles on notable images (such as Joseph Patrick Dwyer, image just added to article) could not be placed in this category w/o first being given a cat based on which war they were from. better to have the name allow for both categories and loose articles. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename – it is the obvious name for its contents. As the nom says, it allows war photos to be collected without specifying the war, and also allows other subcat schemes ( Category:War photographs by paradigm, Category:War photographs by ideology, Category:War photographs by subtheme etc). Oculi ( talk) 12:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: rename to
Category:Photographs by topic. The opposer did not mention having any opposition to that suggestion, others are for it.
delldot
∇.
08:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Photographs by theme to Category:Photographs by subject
- Nominator's rationale: Seems a more precise word, theme is often used for abstract ideas, like love or loss Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Or 'by topic' – looking at Category:Works by topic there are several synonyms for 'topic' included amongst the schemes gathered together, and then there are 'genre', 'discipline' as well. It is a pity one cannot see at a glance who the creators of these myriads might be, but one suspects the dread hand of the mysterious Stefanomione. Oculi ( talk) 14:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the more mysterious ones weren't my creations :
Category:Historiography of specific subject matter,
Category:Academic journals by subject area, ... But I agree, the younger categories 'genre' and 'discipline' need a clean-up brush.
Stefanomione (
talk)
16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks – this seems to be the work of User:Haymouse whose forays into category creation seem to have been glittering but all too brief. As a first creation, Category:Historiography of specific subject matter is precociously brilliant. Oculi ( talk) 19:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the more mysterious ones weren't my creations :
Category:Historiography of specific subject matter,
Category:Academic journals by subject area, ... But I agree, the younger categories 'genre' and 'discipline' need a clean-up brush.
Stefanomione (
talk)
16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - "subject" is who/what is being photographed, not by what the photograph represents (to whom?). So a photo of the Eifel Tower's subject is the Eifel Tower, not engineering works. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment i think carloss is correct, so i would then go with "by topic" instead. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: navboxify and delete. The task of creating the navbox is listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, please feel free to help out with it. delldot ∇. 07:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only four articles, all pretty easily navigable. Sidenote: not named after main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The parent categories of this category are rather inappropriate. "Fictional religions" and "religion in science fiction" make it sound as an element of fiction. While the articles Jediism and Jedi census phenomenon are about real-life people who self-identify as followers of a Jedi religion. Dimadick ( talk) 13:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Selective upmerge, replace with template: They are not all navigable at the moment; Peter Lee (martial artist) (apparently a self-proclaimed founder of Jediism -- the citation is currently unavailable) is not linked from any of the others. Therefore the category has a function. However, I think a new Jedi navbox template would be better, with in-universe and real-world sections. As for the parent categories, the articles should be selectively upmerged before deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fine with "Navbox-ify" per FL above, and WP:CLN. - jc37 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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: keep. Consensus exists that the current name is more objective, flexible and inclusive.
delldot
∇.
07:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations to Category:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
- Nominator's rationale: To match category main (C2D, but likely to be controversial). This category is more about the moral panic and mass hysteria around the allegations than the allegations themselves. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 02:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The current name is much more objective. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rename to match article names. This is supposed to be about allegations that fit into a specific phenomenon, not a generalized category to hold everything that could be interpreted to fit the title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Objective name is allegations; see hysteria to see what that's a loaded word - perhaps it should be put in the only use with caution category like terrorist. If we go with hysteria, do we get to categorize all those caught up in these day care things as "hysterical"? would seem the next logical move. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Present category seems more appropriate as I presume there are some articles about incidents with convictions even if some convictions (eg Peter Ellis) are often considered dubious. The category should be a subcategory of Category:Child sexual abuse as well as or instead of Category:Child care. Hugo999 ( talk) 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note there is at least one indisputable real case in this category now i.e. Amsterdam sex crimes case. And by the way, the shock if not moral panic here in Amsterdam was enormous: parents started to feel uncomfortable with men working in child day care centers. Even if this category is renamed there is a need for a category with allegations, because it is difficult to distinguish real and fake allegations. Andries ( talk) 14:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No activity from this vandal for years; also, WP:DENY. bd2412 T 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- 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.