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:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland
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. It makes more sense as per every other EU country. (There is no Category:LAU-1 authorities in X country for any other EU state).
Mac TíreCowag13:04, 29 January 2012 (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:Operation Sandblast
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 Populated category which is defining for each of the articles. Room to grow with the soon-to-be-built
Triton Park, Beneath the Waves by Edward Finch, and the Operation Sandblast stamp series. (It had a ridculous number of redundant parent cats which I just cleaned up though.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. The categ currently contains only four articles, all of which are adequately inter-linked, and I don't think that's enough to evade the warnings of
WP:SMALLCAT. The case for retention would be a little stronger if we actually had articles on
Triton Park and Beneath the Waves, but I dislike creating categs before there are enough articles to populate them properly: small categories just cause navigational clutter, and should be avoided unless they are part of an established series. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep As the originator, I was planning to do a
Triton Park, my work schedule permitting. I am also sure that I can contact Dr. Finch and he can put together an article on Beneath the Waves. If any MILHIST administrator or editor can bear a hand on this for either of us, that would be appreciated. For myself, I am unfamiliar about how to organize an article on public parks although I have ample material to do the Triton Park. In any case, let us give this a try without having a stop-watch ticking away on the possible deletion of this category. Operation Sandblast was a significant historical event, with many inter-related factors t be considered and catergorized.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
00:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I hope that you don't ask an author to write an article on hir own book, because that would be blatant self-promotion per
WP:COI. There is no ticking clock: editors remain free to write articles on notable topics, regardless of whether a category exists. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Addendum: Please note the
discussion regarding the reason for the deletion of the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), which noted that if this category was retained, which it wasn't, then the Category:Operation Sandblast whould be deleted. Now Category:Operation Sandblast is being considered for deletion. Draw your own conclusions.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The stated reason for the deletion of Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), was that if it was retained, then the Category:Operation Sandblast would be considered redundant and be deleted. So, Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586) was deleted, and now Category:Operation Sandblast is being considered for deletion. May I point out that duting the discussion about deleting Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), it was pointed out that several other single-ship class categories already exist (Category:Long Beach class cruisers, Category:Truxtun class cruisers, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers), and as you can see, all three are even less populated than Category:Operation Sandblast. Draw your own conclusions, but the weakly populated assertion is not logical or consistent. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcd30319 (
talk •
contribs)
As Good Ol'factory notes below, you misread
WP:SMALLCAT, so the comparison with the other categs is a non-runner.
The comment in the previous discussion correctly noted that there was no need for two near-identical categories, but a) it did not address the question of whether either of them was needed, and b) it does not bind this discussion. This discussion takes place in the knowledge that a category for the ship no longer exists, so it is clearly focused on the question of whether or not to keep the category for Operation Sandblast. Unfortunately, you seem to be starting from the mistaken assumption that one or other of the two categories must exist; in fact, there is no presumption that either of them is appropriate, and if you want this category to stay you should try to offer some reasons founded in policy or guidelines rather than repeatedly inviting editors to draw adverse conclusions about the conduct of others. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, and it sounds like bait and switch. I know how things work. If an administrator decides something has to go or be changed, it will disappear or be changed, and contrary opinions be damned. There is no attempt to help or examine alternatives. Even when the discussion doesn't lead to deletion, the resulting
discussion is one where your betters tolerate the facade of intellectual debate or utility in favor of obtuse or self-serving rules. You guys are a bunch of small-town cops at a speed trap collecting tickets and fines. So do whatever you want to do because you are going to do so in any case. Hope everyone have a nice day, and good luck in your search for a real job.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Given the fact that other single-ship class categories already exist (Category:Long Beach class cruisers, Category:Truxtun class cruisers, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers), and they are less populated than Category:Operation Sandblast, the weakly populated argument is not compelling, conistent or logical given the framework of this discussion.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
02:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:SMALLCAT: Although I don't agree with how Marcd30319 has expressed himself, WP:SMALLCAT needlessly leads to these disagreements by not giving a numeric cutoff for what is a small cat. Any cat that is under X (5, 10, 12) articles should just be a speedy delete unless it is part of a series.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:55, 25 January 2012 (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:Roman Catholic orders and societies in Ireland
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: Overcategorisation per
WP:SMALLCAT. This newly-created category contains only one article and one (newly-created) sub-category. I can see no other equivalent "Roman Catholic orders and societies in country" categories, and a peek at
Category:Roman Catholic Church in Ireland shows no sign of other articles which should belong there. Upmerger to its parent category seems the best solution.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:40, 22 January 2012 (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:Franciscans in Ireland
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 The category as currently constituted would work fine with the proposed target, but it is relatively common for Catholic clerics to be transferred from country to country. At the same time, the work of the religious orders in particular parts of the world can and does rise to notability; for example, there is scholarship contrasting the Franciscan and Jesuit approaches to evangelization in China. So, while I don't object to this particular rename, I believe the distinction will become significant over time, and we should have no prejudice against re-creating Franciscans in Ireland should it be merited in the future.-
choster (
talk)
16:26, 24 January 2012 (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:Japan during Cold War
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:Albums produced by L.A. Reid and Babyface
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:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As stated on the category page, this is for "compounds which do not have, and will never have a ChemSpider ID", i.e. not a property of the page but of the compound discussed there. The current title seems to suggest that the ChemSpider ID is missing and should be added. Another possibility would be
Category:Chemical compounds without a ChemSpiderID – more concise, but possibly not quite as clear.
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
09:20, 22 January 2012 (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:Church buildings in the United States by state
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: This would return the category to the name it had before yesterday. The recent move that created the current name [a speedy rename, BTW] was in error, as pointed out in the opposition to the proposed speedy renaming of the categories it contains. Although many articles in the contained categories are elegies to buildings, many others are actually about a local church organization (e.g., a parish) that may or may not occupy a particular building.
Orlady (
talk)
18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The proposed name is ambiguous and the logic being used shows that this is ambiguous. There are two category tress for the very reason being used to support the rename.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Um, the two category trees may exist at a high level, but they are not developed at the local level. For example, the only articles slotted in the
Category:Christianity in state tree are articles about broad topics, such as denominations. Categories like
Category:Churches in Kentucky are included in both
Category:Christianity in Kentucky and
Category:Church buildings in the United States by state (which until two days ago was named
Category:Churches in the United States by state). Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. If there is a desire to distinct category tree for articles that are entirely or partially about church buildings by location, I suggest setting up a separate set of categories for church buildings, rather than hijacking the only existing "churches by place" categories to focus exclusively on buildings. --
Orlady (
talk)
00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. is quite right, but there are church buildings which have become mosques or office buildings. I support the change, but ask that somehow the congregation/parish/denomination vs. the building (currently or formerly a "church") distinction be recognized and handled.--
DThomsen8 (
talk)
16:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- "church" is ambiguous, and can refer to a congregation, a building, a denomination, or all Christian believers. The next nom below this one is for exactly the reverse change, and that should be made.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support or Reconsider both -- This convention is correct, or I can get behind *adding* Category:Church buildings in the United States by state but not renaming Churches (as I've made arguements against below). Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
22:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose overly ambiguous naming, resulting in a grabbag of contents. Church organizations should be entered into a separate category from church buildings.
70.24.245.198 (
talk)
04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - Of course "Churches in ..." category may belong to "Building in ..." category. So we can have top level "Buildings" in lower level "Church", "City Hall", "School" etc. --
Vladek Komorek (
talk)
07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - buildings, congregations, etc are ambiguous in the real world. We can't tease them out to suit an arbitrary classification scheme.
Ephebi (
talk)
17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Some examples of articles that are about more than a building, and thus are not appropriately classified by making this a "buildings" category (including some that I expanded while investigating the categorization situation):
First Baptist Church in America - As with the previous church, the building is an important element of the article, but the article covers a lot of important history that's not particularly connected with the building.
Saddleback Church - This is a famous
megachurch. The buildings it uses are big, but the social and political aspects of the church are the main focus of the article (and more notable than its buildings). This article is not in any "church building" categories right now, except that the renaming of "churches" categories to "church buildings" is moving
Category:Baptist churches in California and
Category:Churches in Orange County, California out of any churches by location hierarchy and putting them into a "church buildings" hierarchy.
Further to the above: As I have stated, I believe that the existing "Churches by location" categories should be left alone while a hierarchy of "Church buildings" categories is created. Both the "churches" tree and "church buildings" tree are incompletely developed right now, but I believe that it makes sense to work on developing these two trees in parallel. As I see it, "Churches in the United States" should be a container category that holds "Church buildings in the United States", "Churches by state in the United States", "Megachurches in the United States", and "Lutheran churches in the United States ", "Presbyterian churches in the United States", and similar denomination-specific categories. "Church buildings in the United States" could be created right now as a container for "Former church buildings in the United States",
Category:Stone churches in the United States,
Category:Wooden churches in the United States, etc. Additionally, because the vast majority of "church buildings" articles are currently stubs (akin to
Big Spring Union Church) and are categorized in at least one church category, one buildings category, and one stub category, some sort of bot-like process should be used to create categories like "Church building stubs in Tennessee", which would consist of all pages that are in a churches by location category (in this example, either "Churches in Tennessee" or a subcat like "Churches in Memphis, Tennessee" or "Baptist churches in Tennessee") AND a buildings category (such as "Buildings and structures in Claiborne County, Tennessee" or "20th century religious buildings") AND at least one stub category (such as
Category:Tennessee Registered Historic Place stubs or
Category:Tennessee building and structure stubs). The "Church building stubs" categories created in this fashion could then be slotted into the appropriate place(s) in the "Church buildings by state" tree. I believe that the combination of (1) reasonable well-developed "church buildings" categories that currently exist and (2) the proposed "Church building stubs by state" categories would capture almost all of the articles that need to be placed in the "Church buildings by state" tree without trashing the comprehensive "churches by state" structure that exists now. Meanwhile, the "Churches by state in the United States" category needs to be a container for both state-specific categories like
Category:Churches in Alabama and denomination-by-state categories like
Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States by state. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:54, 30 January 2012 (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.
Ambiguous categories to match the top levels of the tree
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Parent category is clearly for buildings. Numerous previous CfR has clearly established this name is ambiguous and the proposed name is the preferred unambiguous name. One editor is objecting to these at speedy, so I guess that we need yet another full discussion. Feel free to close at some point as a speedy C2C if appropriate. If any contents are miscategoried here, that would be further evidence that the name is ambiguous and these renames are needed. I find it hard to believe that with subcategories like
Category:Carpenter Gothic churches in Louisiana and
Category:Mennonite church buildings in Pennsylvania the fact that these are for buildings is in question. Many of these categories have the following introduction with the appropriate state: Specifically contains church buildings and structures found in Rhode Island. For a category containing general religion in Rhode Island such as; religions, denominations, and religious leaders see
Religion in Rhode Island.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
If so then those articles are miscategorized in this tree. The rename does not hurt since the correct fix would be to add the correct additional category to the articles actually affected.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that some of these articles are focused on buildings (presumably including many NRHP stubs) and someone has put these into a parent category for buildings does not change the fact that a "church" is an organization (not necessarily a parish), not a building. Instead of renaming all of the categories and asking for the each individual article to be evaluated to determine whether it fits in the category, let's re-examine the parent structure of these categories.--
Orlady (
talk)
16:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Because church is ambiguous in that it has several meanings as pointed out above. So while most editors accept the fact that these are generally buildings, adding buildings removes any question as to the purpose of the category. As you can see from this discussion, despite the fact that some of these categories clearly state that they are for buildings and structures only, some editors believe that they really cover other things. So usage and this discussion demonstrate that the category names really need to be completely unambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I would have thought that "church" could be used for the building, as per
WP:COMMONNAME, and other meanings could be dabbed. "Church building" seems rather ponderous and tautologous to me. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
17:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to see this proceed, and purge those articles that do not match the intended content. The category names are indeed ambiguous, and the contents seem narrowly focused on buildings in most cases. But since there's a well reasoned objection, I think we should move the discussion to
this full-CfD debate.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That still does not address the fact that churches in a category name is ambiguous. Even your oppose makes that point. If you think that a split is better, then feel free to propose that. But these existing category names need to be changed. Also arguments that these should not be renamed, that ignore the fact that these are in building trees, seem to me to be extremely weak. While an individual building and congregation can be in one article and those two facts represented by categories on that article, the same can not be said for the higher level categories!
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
These are in building trees because Wikipedia has an abundance of contributors who are fascinated with documenting the details of old buildings in the United States, have difficulty imagining that there could be anything notable about a local church beyond its building, and who have described many local church categories as being about buildings because they assume (without actually looking) that all "church" articles are in fact articles about church buildings. --
Orlady (
talk)
00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Editors create articles for many reasons. Given that I have looked at maybe 10,000 or so of these in the last year or so, I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of these articles are solely about the building. So much so in fact that I would estimate that maybe at least 30% of these articles are so sketchy that there is no indication of the denomination that used the building. Even looking on the internet that information is hard or impossible to find.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
So you want to define the category structure to fit the myriad near-content-free stubs that are based solely on listings in the NRHP database (when they don't identify things like denomination, it's because the article creators had no clue), and make those articles that have actual substantive content become misfits? --
Orlady (
talk)
05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom, to eliminate some last vestiges of a long-standing ambiguity which causes no end of confusion and miscategorisation. Note that after renaming, some articles may need to be removed from the category; will the nominator undertake to do any necessary recategorisation after renaming? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
They belong somewhere in the
Category:Religion tree. Not sure where and this would since it be a case by case decision. These will probably be an existing catagery. But they clearly should not be in categories with ambiguous names.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename – clearly the status quo has produced a jumble of buildings and non-buildings in the same category. The non-buildings need to be removed to a new tree. (I can't work out what
Monteagle Sunday School Assembly is. Does it have gps coordinates?)
Oculi (
talk)
11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Monteagle Sunday School Assembly is a
Chautauqua assembly that apparently is operated as a church organization. Its physical facilities are probably best understood as a "campus" (including multiple buildings and some open space); they are sometimes described as a "village". It's in the village of
Monteagle, Tennessee; I think that historically it encompassed most of the village. --
Orlady (
talk)
15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename and purge. The narrow focus is better. The category contents are nearly all buildings, but we'll need to check the contents to see if any are miscategorized.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, here are some reasons why it doesn't fit.
The records of any Parish are official legal documents (i.e. Birth Certificates) and are never housed in the Church. Ergo, the Rectory is also notable as a hall of records, just as any Town Hall or Library (depending on the location) is.
There are five Ecclesiastical Provinces in Connecticut. This would mean that an article like
Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford or
Cathedral of St. Joseph (Hartford, Connecticut) would have it's category changed to reflect a building, as opposed to the seminaries, the fact that it's the seat & office of a Bishop, or the actual congregation's history. That's like changing the category for the
Yale Library from Libraries in New Haven County, Connecticut to Buildings in New Haven County, Connecticut. Sure, the building exists, but what about it's USE?
I'm not oppposed to a Buildings category per se, but I am wholly opposed to removing the Churches category as the Church building is *not* the only notable thing about a Parish.
Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Mark, you confuse the concepts of
notability with that of importance, and as a result your first three points are largely irrelevant to an assessment of notability. In any case, notability is a property of an article, and is largely irrelevant to categorisation. A non-notable topic should not have an article, so a categorisation discussion starts from the assumption that an article is about a notable topic.
Hi BrownhairedGirl, I have to disagree on points #1 &2 unless you want to delete the
Harvard Film Archive, the
University of California Libraries or pretty much any other record storing location. I disagree on point #3 as you're dismissing events that are the very definition of notability, which occurred inside of a parish property -- and not always the Church building itself.
As you said, " non-notable topic should not have an article, so a categorisation discussion starts from the assumption that an article is about a notable topic." -- exactly so. So my quesiton is why on Earth would you believe that the US Capitol is notable, but that the Senators and Congressmen are not? Or, that the
national mall isn't?
Thanks, but "Church" is not ambiguous to those that are in it: the church is the building, the clergy, and the people. That is why I don't mind the creation of ANOTHER category, but the renaming on the Church one is misguided.
Mark, those first two paras have nothing at all to do with this discussion. You still don't seem willing to accept that this is a discussion about categorising the content of existing articles, not about whether they should exist or be split.
Secondly, a passing mention of the existence of a cathedral does not mean that the article is about a cathedral or should be categorised as such. If the article included some substantive coverage of the cathedral, then the article (or a redirect to it from the name of the cathedral) should be categorised as a cathedral. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
BrownHairedGirl, you don't seem to get that all of my points about splitting articles are just points to show that the articles in question are NOT about the buildings alone and therefore it is inherently wrong to do a category rename instead of a category add. At no point am I actually saying "split these articles up", I'm saying "these articles are about MORE than just a building". YES! Exactly! "a passing mention of the existence of a cathedral does not mean that the article is about a cathedral or should be categorised as such" -- which is what this proposal does! "Church" is not any more ambiguous than "town" is (or many other locations): it is the buildings, the grounds, and the PEOPLE. As for the first two points, I have no idea how you can possibly just dismiss them without consideration. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Mark, once again please
WP:AGF, and do not suggest that I dismissed your points without consideration. I did indeed consider them carefully, and dismissed them because they are nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
You seem to think that you are the only person who has noticed that the renaming will narrow the scope of the categories, but that has been explicitly acknowledged by others, and if the rename proceeds then some articles will need to be removed. There is nothing particularly unusual about that; it is quite common a CFD for a category's scope to be adjusted.
The renaming causes no problem for the categorisation of
Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford, because it should not be in either a "Churches in Foo" category or a "Church buildings in Foo" category. (It's an article about a diocese, not about a church). To prevent it causing you any further distress, I will fix that right now. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
04:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
As to your 4th item, there are different trees for the schools since schools are not churches even if they may be associated with a specific parish.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Markvs88, please stop being silly. This is not a discussion about deleting articles, nor about splitting them. If an article covers multiple topics, it can be included in multiple categories, and does not need to be split. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
BrownHairedGirl, Vegaswikian is stating that only the actual church building is important to the articles, my position is contrary to his in that it is not necessarily the only notable componant of a typical church article. As I've said many times now: go ahead and ADD a Church Building category, I have no problem with that. But to rename the Church category is... silly. :-) Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else. I have not made any assertion like that. I have simply been pointing out that the current category name is ambiguous. You have not offered anything that addresses that problem. Splitting has always been an option, so do you support that? If so your objection goes away and everyone will endorse a rename and a split.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh? You didn't say "The main structure that these are in are for the buildings which is generally all that is notable" on
my talk, and "Parent category is clearly for buildings" here? Disingenuous, given that you've been given over a half a dozen examples of articles that are Church articles and NOT about the buildings in the Chuch categories. As I also point out to Peterkingiron below, if you want to say that "Church" is ambiguous, so is "town" and many other location words. Of *course* I don't support splitting, didn't you read the Mandalay Bay example a few lines above? ...Are you kidding? I have said no less that 4 times "ADD the building category but don't rename the Church one". No one has replied. Orlady has said the same above, to add and not repurpose. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- "church" is ambiguous, and can refer to a congregation, a building, a denomination, or all Christian believers. However, most articles that are (or should be) in the categories are about buildings and the activities which the congregation meeting there undertake. I have no idea what "Mandalay Bay" has to do about this; and so ignore those comments. I recall a batch of articles on churches being renamed to "congregations" when most of the articles were about buildings.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That discussion was of little relevance to this one, because it is about how to structure articles, not about how they should be categorised. If the article covers a building, then it can be categorised as a church building; if it covers a parish, then it can be categorised as such; and if it covers both then it can be categorised as both. What's the problem? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
BrownHairedGirl, we keep telling you what the problem is, you keep on dismissing it as "impertinent". Vladek is talking about the difference between
church and
parish church, which he feels is being ignored. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Update. I have moved the Speedy discussion to the top of this one. That discussion was becoming quite lengthy, and all of the comments seemed germane to this discussion. So I've consolidated them, in hopes that the original commenters' concerns can be heard here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:05, 26 January 2012 (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:Button-cell battery manufacturers
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, but to the more specific
Category:Consumer battery manufacturers, I'd say. As someone who uses them for his hearing aids, I can attest that they bear the same brands -- Duracell, Energizer, etc, -- as the rest. I can't come up with a defining reason why we would not then need siblings for AA, AAA, C, D, 9 volt etc.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
04:17, 23 January 2012 (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 Civil War military engagements in Adams County, Pennsylvania
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:Jerash Private University
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Feel free to renominate to discuss this nomination or any of the other alternatives suggested. - jc3705:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete Eponymous category for private university - containing only itself. Do not see other possibilities for inclusion in category
Skier Dude (
talk)
03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – the faculty subcat is fine, part of
Category:Faculty by university or college in Jordan (which is itself part of a larger global tree, not necessarily consistently named). An alumni subcat would also be fine (if any can be found). If we draw a parallel with eponymous musician categories (regularly tested at cfd, unlike eponymous university cats), I can't think of any that have ever been kept with such minimal contents.
Oculi (
talk)
11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- With a univeristy in an arabic speaking country, it is hardly surprising that we should have few articles. As the university website is in arabic, I cannot understand it, and so have no idea how substantial an institution it is. I see little harm in it remaining and us waiting to see what more we get. Alternatively upmerge the faculty category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:15, 23 January 2012 (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:Public domain films in the United States
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.
See comments by myself, Oculi and anon user in the previous CFD. In short, don't believe PD films made after 1923 should be categorized at all due to difficulties in defining a film as being PD and misuse of categories without sources. These films should be recognized as PD only carefully through the mechanisms that allow sourcing, that is directly in articles or list-of articles.
Green Cardamom (
talk)
02:26, 22 January 2012 (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:Taluks of Thanjavur district
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- This appears to be a case of an inexperienced user having found a category mispelt and created a correctly spelt replacement and edited all the articles to the new form, thus emptying the category out of process. AS far as I can understand it, a taluk is something like an English parish. In England many places have an article categorised as on a parish, but in fact the article is about the village at its core. These will be categorised by district. I see no objection to a similar category tree for Indian taluks. I would oppose merging them inot a state-wide category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:10, 23 January 2012 (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:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland
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. It makes more sense as per every other EU country. (There is no Category:LAU-1 authorities in X country for any other EU state).
Mac TíreCowag13:04, 29 January 2012 (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:Operation Sandblast
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 Populated category which is defining for each of the articles. Room to grow with the soon-to-be-built
Triton Park, Beneath the Waves by Edward Finch, and the Operation Sandblast stamp series. (It had a ridculous number of redundant parent cats which I just cleaned up though.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. The categ currently contains only four articles, all of which are adequately inter-linked, and I don't think that's enough to evade the warnings of
WP:SMALLCAT. The case for retention would be a little stronger if we actually had articles on
Triton Park and Beneath the Waves, but I dislike creating categs before there are enough articles to populate them properly: small categories just cause navigational clutter, and should be avoided unless they are part of an established series. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep As the originator, I was planning to do a
Triton Park, my work schedule permitting. I am also sure that I can contact Dr. Finch and he can put together an article on Beneath the Waves. If any MILHIST administrator or editor can bear a hand on this for either of us, that would be appreciated. For myself, I am unfamiliar about how to organize an article on public parks although I have ample material to do the Triton Park. In any case, let us give this a try without having a stop-watch ticking away on the possible deletion of this category. Operation Sandblast was a significant historical event, with many inter-related factors t be considered and catergorized.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
00:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I hope that you don't ask an author to write an article on hir own book, because that would be blatant self-promotion per
WP:COI. There is no ticking clock: editors remain free to write articles on notable topics, regardless of whether a category exists. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Addendum: Please note the
discussion regarding the reason for the deletion of the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), which noted that if this category was retained, which it wasn't, then the Category:Operation Sandblast whould be deleted. Now Category:Operation Sandblast is being considered for deletion. Draw your own conclusions.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The stated reason for the deletion of Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), was that if it was retained, then the Category:Operation Sandblast would be considered redundant and be deleted. So, Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586) was deleted, and now Category:Operation Sandblast is being considered for deletion. May I point out that duting the discussion about deleting Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), it was pointed out that several other single-ship class categories already exist (Category:Long Beach class cruisers, Category:Truxtun class cruisers, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers), and as you can see, all three are even less populated than Category:Operation Sandblast. Draw your own conclusions, but the weakly populated assertion is not logical or consistent. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcd30319 (
talk •
contribs)
As Good Ol'factory notes below, you misread
WP:SMALLCAT, so the comparison with the other categs is a non-runner.
The comment in the previous discussion correctly noted that there was no need for two near-identical categories, but a) it did not address the question of whether either of them was needed, and b) it does not bind this discussion. This discussion takes place in the knowledge that a category for the ship no longer exists, so it is clearly focused on the question of whether or not to keep the category for Operation Sandblast. Unfortunately, you seem to be starting from the mistaken assumption that one or other of the two categories must exist; in fact, there is no presumption that either of them is appropriate, and if you want this category to stay you should try to offer some reasons founded in policy or guidelines rather than repeatedly inviting editors to draw adverse conclusions about the conduct of others. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, and it sounds like bait and switch. I know how things work. If an administrator decides something has to go or be changed, it will disappear or be changed, and contrary opinions be damned. There is no attempt to help or examine alternatives. Even when the discussion doesn't lead to deletion, the resulting
discussion is one where your betters tolerate the facade of intellectual debate or utility in favor of obtuse or self-serving rules. You guys are a bunch of small-town cops at a speed trap collecting tickets and fines. So do whatever you want to do because you are going to do so in any case. Hope everyone have a nice day, and good luck in your search for a real job.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Given the fact that other single-ship class categories already exist (Category:Long Beach class cruisers, Category:Truxtun class cruisers, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers), and they are less populated than Category:Operation Sandblast, the weakly populated argument is not compelling, conistent or logical given the framework of this discussion.
Marcd30319 (
talk)
02:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:SMALLCAT: Although I don't agree with how Marcd30319 has expressed himself, WP:SMALLCAT needlessly leads to these disagreements by not giving a numeric cutoff for what is a small cat. Any cat that is under X (5, 10, 12) articles should just be a speedy delete unless it is part of a series.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:55, 25 January 2012 (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:Roman Catholic orders and societies in Ireland
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: Overcategorisation per
WP:SMALLCAT. This newly-created category contains only one article and one (newly-created) sub-category. I can see no other equivalent "Roman Catholic orders and societies in country" categories, and a peek at
Category:Roman Catholic Church in Ireland shows no sign of other articles which should belong there. Upmerger to its parent category seems the best solution.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:40, 22 January 2012 (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:Franciscans in Ireland
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 The category as currently constituted would work fine with the proposed target, but it is relatively common for Catholic clerics to be transferred from country to country. At the same time, the work of the religious orders in particular parts of the world can and does rise to notability; for example, there is scholarship contrasting the Franciscan and Jesuit approaches to evangelization in China. So, while I don't object to this particular rename, I believe the distinction will become significant over time, and we should have no prejudice against re-creating Franciscans in Ireland should it be merited in the future.-
choster (
talk)
16:26, 24 January 2012 (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:Japan during Cold War
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:Albums produced by L.A. Reid and Babyface
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:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As stated on the category page, this is for "compounds which do not have, and will never have a ChemSpider ID", i.e. not a property of the page but of the compound discussed there. The current title seems to suggest that the ChemSpider ID is missing and should be added. Another possibility would be
Category:Chemical compounds without a ChemSpiderID – more concise, but possibly not quite as clear.
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
09:20, 22 January 2012 (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:Church buildings in the United States by state
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: This would return the category to the name it had before yesterday. The recent move that created the current name [a speedy rename, BTW] was in error, as pointed out in the opposition to the proposed speedy renaming of the categories it contains. Although many articles in the contained categories are elegies to buildings, many others are actually about a local church organization (e.g., a parish) that may or may not occupy a particular building.
Orlady (
talk)
18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The proposed name is ambiguous and the logic being used shows that this is ambiguous. There are two category tress for the very reason being used to support the rename.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Um, the two category trees may exist at a high level, but they are not developed at the local level. For example, the only articles slotted in the
Category:Christianity in state tree are articles about broad topics, such as denominations. Categories like
Category:Churches in Kentucky are included in both
Category:Christianity in Kentucky and
Category:Church buildings in the United States by state (which until two days ago was named
Category:Churches in the United States by state). Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. If there is a desire to distinct category tree for articles that are entirely or partially about church buildings by location, I suggest setting up a separate set of categories for church buildings, rather than hijacking the only existing "churches by place" categories to focus exclusively on buildings. --
Orlady (
talk)
00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. is quite right, but there are church buildings which have become mosques or office buildings. I support the change, but ask that somehow the congregation/parish/denomination vs. the building (currently or formerly a "church") distinction be recognized and handled.--
DThomsen8 (
talk)
16:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- "church" is ambiguous, and can refer to a congregation, a building, a denomination, or all Christian believers. The next nom below this one is for exactly the reverse change, and that should be made.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support or Reconsider both -- This convention is correct, or I can get behind *adding* Category:Church buildings in the United States by state but not renaming Churches (as I've made arguements against below). Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
22:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose overly ambiguous naming, resulting in a grabbag of contents. Church organizations should be entered into a separate category from church buildings.
70.24.245.198 (
talk)
04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - Of course "Churches in ..." category may belong to "Building in ..." category. So we can have top level "Buildings" in lower level "Church", "City Hall", "School" etc. --
Vladek Komorek (
talk)
07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - buildings, congregations, etc are ambiguous in the real world. We can't tease them out to suit an arbitrary classification scheme.
Ephebi (
talk)
17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Some examples of articles that are about more than a building, and thus are not appropriately classified by making this a "buildings" category (including some that I expanded while investigating the categorization situation):
First Baptist Church in America - As with the previous church, the building is an important element of the article, but the article covers a lot of important history that's not particularly connected with the building.
Saddleback Church - This is a famous
megachurch. The buildings it uses are big, but the social and political aspects of the church are the main focus of the article (and more notable than its buildings). This article is not in any "church building" categories right now, except that the renaming of "churches" categories to "church buildings" is moving
Category:Baptist churches in California and
Category:Churches in Orange County, California out of any churches by location hierarchy and putting them into a "church buildings" hierarchy.
Further to the above: As I have stated, I believe that the existing "Churches by location" categories should be left alone while a hierarchy of "Church buildings" categories is created. Both the "churches" tree and "church buildings" tree are incompletely developed right now, but I believe that it makes sense to work on developing these two trees in parallel. As I see it, "Churches in the United States" should be a container category that holds "Church buildings in the United States", "Churches by state in the United States", "Megachurches in the United States", and "Lutheran churches in the United States ", "Presbyterian churches in the United States", and similar denomination-specific categories. "Church buildings in the United States" could be created right now as a container for "Former church buildings in the United States",
Category:Stone churches in the United States,
Category:Wooden churches in the United States, etc. Additionally, because the vast majority of "church buildings" articles are currently stubs (akin to
Big Spring Union Church) and are categorized in at least one church category, one buildings category, and one stub category, some sort of bot-like process should be used to create categories like "Church building stubs in Tennessee", which would consist of all pages that are in a churches by location category (in this example, either "Churches in Tennessee" or a subcat like "Churches in Memphis, Tennessee" or "Baptist churches in Tennessee") AND a buildings category (such as "Buildings and structures in Claiborne County, Tennessee" or "20th century religious buildings") AND at least one stub category (such as
Category:Tennessee Registered Historic Place stubs or
Category:Tennessee building and structure stubs). The "Church building stubs" categories created in this fashion could then be slotted into the appropriate place(s) in the "Church buildings by state" tree. I believe that the combination of (1) reasonable well-developed "church buildings" categories that currently exist and (2) the proposed "Church building stubs by state" categories would capture almost all of the articles that need to be placed in the "Church buildings by state" tree without trashing the comprehensive "churches by state" structure that exists now. Meanwhile, the "Churches by state in the United States" category needs to be a container for both state-specific categories like
Category:Churches in Alabama and denomination-by-state categories like
Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States by state. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:54, 30 January 2012 (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.
Ambiguous categories to match the top levels of the tree
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Parent category is clearly for buildings. Numerous previous CfR has clearly established this name is ambiguous and the proposed name is the preferred unambiguous name. One editor is objecting to these at speedy, so I guess that we need yet another full discussion. Feel free to close at some point as a speedy C2C if appropriate. If any contents are miscategoried here, that would be further evidence that the name is ambiguous and these renames are needed. I find it hard to believe that with subcategories like
Category:Carpenter Gothic churches in Louisiana and
Category:Mennonite church buildings in Pennsylvania the fact that these are for buildings is in question. Many of these categories have the following introduction with the appropriate state: Specifically contains church buildings and structures found in Rhode Island. For a category containing general religion in Rhode Island such as; religions, denominations, and religious leaders see
Religion in Rhode Island.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
If so then those articles are miscategorized in this tree. The rename does not hurt since the correct fix would be to add the correct additional category to the articles actually affected.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that some of these articles are focused on buildings (presumably including many NRHP stubs) and someone has put these into a parent category for buildings does not change the fact that a "church" is an organization (not necessarily a parish), not a building. Instead of renaming all of the categories and asking for the each individual article to be evaluated to determine whether it fits in the category, let's re-examine the parent structure of these categories.--
Orlady (
talk)
16:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Because church is ambiguous in that it has several meanings as pointed out above. So while most editors accept the fact that these are generally buildings, adding buildings removes any question as to the purpose of the category. As you can see from this discussion, despite the fact that some of these categories clearly state that they are for buildings and structures only, some editors believe that they really cover other things. So usage and this discussion demonstrate that the category names really need to be completely unambiguous.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I would have thought that "church" could be used for the building, as per
WP:COMMONNAME, and other meanings could be dabbed. "Church building" seems rather ponderous and tautologous to me. --
Bermicourt (
talk)
17:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to see this proceed, and purge those articles that do not match the intended content. The category names are indeed ambiguous, and the contents seem narrowly focused on buildings in most cases. But since there's a well reasoned objection, I think we should move the discussion to
this full-CfD debate.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That still does not address the fact that churches in a category name is ambiguous. Even your oppose makes that point. If you think that a split is better, then feel free to propose that. But these existing category names need to be changed. Also arguments that these should not be renamed, that ignore the fact that these are in building trees, seem to me to be extremely weak. While an individual building and congregation can be in one article and those two facts represented by categories on that article, the same can not be said for the higher level categories!
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
These are in building trees because Wikipedia has an abundance of contributors who are fascinated with documenting the details of old buildings in the United States, have difficulty imagining that there could be anything notable about a local church beyond its building, and who have described many local church categories as being about buildings because they assume (without actually looking) that all "church" articles are in fact articles about church buildings. --
Orlady (
talk)
00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Editors create articles for many reasons. Given that I have looked at maybe 10,000 or so of these in the last year or so, I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of these articles are solely about the building. So much so in fact that I would estimate that maybe at least 30% of these articles are so sketchy that there is no indication of the denomination that used the building. Even looking on the internet that information is hard or impossible to find.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
So you want to define the category structure to fit the myriad near-content-free stubs that are based solely on listings in the NRHP database (when they don't identify things like denomination, it's because the article creators had no clue), and make those articles that have actual substantive content become misfits? --
Orlady (
talk)
05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom, to eliminate some last vestiges of a long-standing ambiguity which causes no end of confusion and miscategorisation. Note that after renaming, some articles may need to be removed from the category; will the nominator undertake to do any necessary recategorisation after renaming? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
They belong somewhere in the
Category:Religion tree. Not sure where and this would since it be a case by case decision. These will probably be an existing catagery. But they clearly should not be in categories with ambiguous names.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename – clearly the status quo has produced a jumble of buildings and non-buildings in the same category. The non-buildings need to be removed to a new tree. (I can't work out what
Monteagle Sunday School Assembly is. Does it have gps coordinates?)
Oculi (
talk)
11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Monteagle Sunday School Assembly is a
Chautauqua assembly that apparently is operated as a church organization. Its physical facilities are probably best understood as a "campus" (including multiple buildings and some open space); they are sometimes described as a "village". It's in the village of
Monteagle, Tennessee; I think that historically it encompassed most of the village. --
Orlady (
talk)
15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename and purge. The narrow focus is better. The category contents are nearly all buildings, but we'll need to check the contents to see if any are miscategorized.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, here are some reasons why it doesn't fit.
The records of any Parish are official legal documents (i.e. Birth Certificates) and are never housed in the Church. Ergo, the Rectory is also notable as a hall of records, just as any Town Hall or Library (depending on the location) is.
There are five Ecclesiastical Provinces in Connecticut. This would mean that an article like
Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford or
Cathedral of St. Joseph (Hartford, Connecticut) would have it's category changed to reflect a building, as opposed to the seminaries, the fact that it's the seat & office of a Bishop, or the actual congregation's history. That's like changing the category for the
Yale Library from Libraries in New Haven County, Connecticut to Buildings in New Haven County, Connecticut. Sure, the building exists, but what about it's USE?
I'm not oppposed to a Buildings category per se, but I am wholly opposed to removing the Churches category as the Church building is *not* the only notable thing about a Parish.
Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Mark, you confuse the concepts of
notability with that of importance, and as a result your first three points are largely irrelevant to an assessment of notability. In any case, notability is a property of an article, and is largely irrelevant to categorisation. A non-notable topic should not have an article, so a categorisation discussion starts from the assumption that an article is about a notable topic.
Hi BrownhairedGirl, I have to disagree on points #1 &2 unless you want to delete the
Harvard Film Archive, the
University of California Libraries or pretty much any other record storing location. I disagree on point #3 as you're dismissing events that are the very definition of notability, which occurred inside of a parish property -- and not always the Church building itself.
As you said, " non-notable topic should not have an article, so a categorisation discussion starts from the assumption that an article is about a notable topic." -- exactly so. So my quesiton is why on Earth would you believe that the US Capitol is notable, but that the Senators and Congressmen are not? Or, that the
national mall isn't?
Thanks, but "Church" is not ambiguous to those that are in it: the church is the building, the clergy, and the people. That is why I don't mind the creation of ANOTHER category, but the renaming on the Church one is misguided.
Mark, those first two paras have nothing at all to do with this discussion. You still don't seem willing to accept that this is a discussion about categorising the content of existing articles, not about whether they should exist or be split.
Secondly, a passing mention of the existence of a cathedral does not mean that the article is about a cathedral or should be categorised as such. If the article included some substantive coverage of the cathedral, then the article (or a redirect to it from the name of the cathedral) should be categorised as a cathedral. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
BrownHairedGirl, you don't seem to get that all of my points about splitting articles are just points to show that the articles in question are NOT about the buildings alone and therefore it is inherently wrong to do a category rename instead of a category add. At no point am I actually saying "split these articles up", I'm saying "these articles are about MORE than just a building". YES! Exactly! "a passing mention of the existence of a cathedral does not mean that the article is about a cathedral or should be categorised as such" -- which is what this proposal does! "Church" is not any more ambiguous than "town" is (or many other locations): it is the buildings, the grounds, and the PEOPLE. As for the first two points, I have no idea how you can possibly just dismiss them without consideration. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Mark, once again please
WP:AGF, and do not suggest that I dismissed your points without consideration. I did indeed consider them carefully, and dismissed them because they are nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
You seem to think that you are the only person who has noticed that the renaming will narrow the scope of the categories, but that has been explicitly acknowledged by others, and if the rename proceeds then some articles will need to be removed. There is nothing particularly unusual about that; it is quite common a CFD for a category's scope to be adjusted.
The renaming causes no problem for the categorisation of
Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford, because it should not be in either a "Churches in Foo" category or a "Church buildings in Foo" category. (It's an article about a diocese, not about a church). To prevent it causing you any further distress, I will fix that right now. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
04:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
As to your 4th item, there are different trees for the schools since schools are not churches even if they may be associated with a specific parish.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Markvs88, please stop being silly. This is not a discussion about deleting articles, nor about splitting them. If an article covers multiple topics, it can be included in multiple categories, and does not need to be split. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
BrownHairedGirl, Vegaswikian is stating that only the actual church building is important to the articles, my position is contrary to his in that it is not necessarily the only notable componant of a typical church article. As I've said many times now: go ahead and ADD a Church Building category, I have no problem with that. But to rename the Church category is... silly. :-) Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else. I have not made any assertion like that. I have simply been pointing out that the current category name is ambiguous. You have not offered anything that addresses that problem. Splitting has always been an option, so do you support that? If so your objection goes away and everyone will endorse a rename and a split.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh? You didn't say "The main structure that these are in are for the buildings which is generally all that is notable" on
my talk, and "Parent category is clearly for buildings" here? Disingenuous, given that you've been given over a half a dozen examples of articles that are Church articles and NOT about the buildings in the Chuch categories. As I also point out to Peterkingiron below, if you want to say that "Church" is ambiguous, so is "town" and many other location words. Of *course* I don't support splitting, didn't you read the Mandalay Bay example a few lines above? ...Are you kidding? I have said no less that 4 times "ADD the building category but don't rename the Church one". No one has replied. Orlady has said the same above, to add and not repurpose. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Support -- "church" is ambiguous, and can refer to a congregation, a building, a denomination, or all Christian believers. However, most articles that are (or should be) in the categories are about buildings and the activities which the congregation meeting there undertake. I have no idea what "Mandalay Bay" has to do about this; and so ignore those comments. I recall a batch of articles on churches being renamed to "congregations" when most of the articles were about buildings.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That discussion was of little relevance to this one, because it is about how to structure articles, not about how they should be categorised. If the article covers a building, then it can be categorised as a church building; if it covers a parish, then it can be categorised as such; and if it covers both then it can be categorised as both. What's the problem? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
BrownHairedGirl, we keep telling you what the problem is, you keep on dismissing it as "impertinent". Vladek is talking about the difference between
church and
parish church, which he feels is being ignored. Best,
Markvs88 (
talk)
13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Update. I have moved the Speedy discussion to the top of this one. That discussion was becoming quite lengthy, and all of the comments seemed germane to this discussion. So I've consolidated them, in hopes that the original commenters' concerns can be heard here.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
13:05, 26 January 2012 (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:Button-cell battery manufacturers
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, but to the more specific
Category:Consumer battery manufacturers, I'd say. As someone who uses them for his hearing aids, I can attest that they bear the same brands -- Duracell, Energizer, etc, -- as the rest. I can't come up with a defining reason why we would not then need siblings for AA, AAA, C, D, 9 volt etc.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
04:17, 23 January 2012 (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 Civil War military engagements in Adams County, Pennsylvania
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:Jerash Private University
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. Feel free to renominate to discuss this nomination or any of the other alternatives suggested. - jc3705:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete Eponymous category for private university - containing only itself. Do not see other possibilities for inclusion in category
Skier Dude (
talk)
03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – the faculty subcat is fine, part of
Category:Faculty by university or college in Jordan (which is itself part of a larger global tree, not necessarily consistently named). An alumni subcat would also be fine (if any can be found). If we draw a parallel with eponymous musician categories (regularly tested at cfd, unlike eponymous university cats), I can't think of any that have ever been kept with such minimal contents.
Oculi (
talk)
11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- With a univeristy in an arabic speaking country, it is hardly surprising that we should have few articles. As the university website is in arabic, I cannot understand it, and so have no idea how substantial an institution it is. I see little harm in it remaining and us waiting to see what more we get. Alternatively upmerge the faculty category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:15, 23 January 2012 (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:Public domain films in the United States
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.
See comments by myself, Oculi and anon user in the previous CFD. In short, don't believe PD films made after 1923 should be categorized at all due to difficulties in defining a film as being PD and misuse of categories without sources. These films should be recognized as PD only carefully through the mechanisms that allow sourcing, that is directly in articles or list-of articles.
Green Cardamom (
talk)
02:26, 22 January 2012 (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:Taluks of Thanjavur district
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete -- This appears to be a case of an inexperienced user having found a category mispelt and created a correctly spelt replacement and edited all the articles to the new form, thus emptying the category out of process. AS far as I can understand it, a taluk is something like an English parish. In England many places have an article categorised as on a parish, but in fact the article is about the village at its core. These will be categorised by district. I see no objection to a similar category tree for Indian taluks. I would oppose merging them inot a state-wide category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:10, 23 January 2012 (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.