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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and perform necessary pruning/splitting manually. There's a feeling on both sides that there should also be an RFC on this matter to get an overall final consensus but for now the consensus is to rename these.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
10:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Restore the old name for the container category and all of its contained state-level categories, per discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 3#Church building back again that resulted in "no consensus" to rename the remaining state-level categories. The current naming situation is inconsistent. "Churches" is a better choice for these categories; although many of the individual articles in the contained categories are focused on buildings occupied by churches, many of them are about churches. While the term "church buildings" is specific to only one of these topics, the term "churches" can encompass both. If there is a perceived need for a category hierarchy for buildings occupied by churches (for example, to hold state-specific subcategories of
Category:Wooden churches in the United States), it can be created as a separate hierarchy.
Orlady (
talk)
21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strongest Support Possible: Why any of those categories where changed in the first place is beyond me. You don't get up on Sunday (or Saturday for some) and go to Church Building, you go to Church. There aren't churches called "St. Paul Catholic Church Building" or "St. Olaf Lutheran Church Building". Having a category renaming an entire category of buildings (which have always been called simply "Churches" or a "Church") is just silly. Surprised we don't have categories for "Hospital Buildings" and "School Buildings" and even "Schoolhouse Buildings". Just silly. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
22:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support, but prune - Some of the cats have subcats which are for former church buildings or other such building-related categories, which should probably be pruned out. (Note: While I did see this nom, I also received a
friendly notice about it as well.) - jc3723:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If you really read what the arguments are, then this should be a split. Buildings exist, are historic and have articles. If you decide on Sunday you are going to church that is ambiguous. First, in a place where you have choice, you decide what religion you will grace with your presence. Then you decide which building you will be going to or parish or whatever. This is based on many factors including the time of the service and the language the service is in or the rite or... If we want to classify by multiple factors, then go ahead. But just split what we have. We can argue all we want about which is right, but we are not going to know which category has the most members of a certain class. Rather then pushing the problem down the road, start by fixing it now.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree (prune/split). Some may also need renames per he comments of JPL below, where some religious groups use other words (like temple or synagogue) for community assembly. But the renames (and more complex splits) can be dealt with in future noms and/or at editorial discretion. - jc3703:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Churches and Church buildings are clearly different things. The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the
Church of England are Churches. They are not buildings. In Latter-day Saints usage no one would ever accept putting an article on a Church building in a category named "Churches". On the other hand some Churches exist without having a building at all. Churches are religious units, their size and whther they are stand alone congregations or networks of thousands varry, but to conflate Church and Church building into being the same term is just wrong. They are not the same thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Although the given names of some denominations include the word "Church", there is a perfectly good generic noun to describe those entities: "denomination". On the other hand, no one has been able to suggest a satisfactory substitute term to characterize the type of local religious entity that is commonly known as a "church". --
Orlady (
talk)
02:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Propose moratorium, pending an RFC. I supported some of the CfDs which renamed these categories to the "church buildings" format, but am now neutral on the subject because it is clear that the result has not produced a stable consensus. There are good arguments on both sides of this debate, and no easy solution is in sight ... so I suggest that the best way forward is to close any CfDs on churches and their buildings and have a wider discussion at an RFC. It is clear so far that the process of having a series of individual discussions is not leading to consistent or stable outcomes, and the result is unhelpful to both readers and editors. An RFC provides an opportunity to clarify the the issues and lay the basis for a solution which which takes the controversy out of these discussions. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
08:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong support for proposal: As I explained before it is the proper name for churches category. Do not mixed with faith name - Church. It is also a category name similar to other wikis. --
Władysław Komorek (
talk)
09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nomination. As I pointed out in previous discussion, our articles do not in general separate out the story of the congregation from that of the place where it meets, for the reason that in general they cannot be separated.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I agree that two schemes seems to be the best option. Some articles are only about buildings, some are only about church organizations, and some are about both. One single category scheme can't deal appropriately with all three types of article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't know anything about your personal dispute with another editor or editors. I'm simply stating what I think would be the right thing to do in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Given that
this discussion has not yet concluded, I'm not sure why this nomination was started. It seems to me that that one should be resolved, and then we should go from there based on how it is closed.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: My apologies for not searching to ensure that there were no related discussions ongoing before I started this one. I don't often deal with articles and categories about churches in Bangladesh, Honduras, etc., so my attention had not been drawn to that discussion. I have, however, been repeatedly annoyed by the fact that categories like
Category:Episcopal churches in Tennessee and articles that focus on the history, pastoral leadership, membership recruitment practices, politics, and similar non-building-related aspects of a local church are forced into categories (or subcategories of categories) that are named "Church buildings". Additionally, when creating new categories such as
Category:Baptist churches in Wisconsin (one that I created a day or so ago), I've found it annoying to have to check to see if the state in question was one that had a "churches" category or one that had a "church buildings" category. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per my arguments in the current other discussion & previous ones, & per nom. BHg's suggestion of an RFC may be a good idea.
Johnbod (
talk)
02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. There was no benefit in splitting those categories in the first place. The world is sometimes ambiguous, get used to it.
Ephebi (
talk)
07:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment For as problematic as NRHP stubs have been to begin with, here's another issue I see which especially applies to many of those articles. If a church is primarily recognized for its building, such as being listed on the NRHP, will that be used as a pretense to ignore or disregard the presence of a current, active congregation regularly meeting in said building? I can actually see this being a problem in the case of small, rural communities, for which little is known to the world at large outside of census data.
RadioKAOS (
talk)
01:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per my parallel proposal at the country level, but agree that an RFC is desperately needed to bring consistency to the topic. --
BDD (
talk)
23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong support per my arguments and
Choster's at
CFD May 4 which is about the country level. IMHO the term is broad enough to cover all places of worship within a broad meaning of Christianity including cathedrals and LDS Tabernacles. Even former church buildings also serviced former church congregations; if an article currently says nothing about the people, that is probably because it is a stub awaiting expansion, set up from a register of buildings. Although it would be possible to set up sub-cats as container categories for such premises, I would see that as (i) unnecessary, (ii) highly liable to lead to mis-categorisation, over-categorisation and proliferation of inconsistent categories. –
Fayenatic London(talk)12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment A church is an organization, it is not a building. There is no organization that corresponds to the tabernacle. It is owned by a Church with much more assets, but there is no Church specifically connected to it. This would be like putting an article on a specific university building into
Category:Universities and colleges in Connecticut. The building is not the university.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. While I originally supported the narrow focus of the church buildings categories, this needs to be standardized. The church buildings categories did not get consensus, so let's put all this back.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
23:00, 25 May 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:Films about the Moon
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.
Suport. I am wondering though if we have a good criteria on how much of a work needs to be set in a place to be so characterized. Do we put a film in the setting of every city that shows up, or do we only go for the one main location, or do we compromise and use a "significant setting" rule?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose this was nominated in January
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 25 and several films that are NOT set on the Moon are still in the category. Apollo 13 is not set on the Moon, but it is about the Moon. Many films about moonshots and lunar programs don't ever get to be set on the Moon either. I think the Hercules vs Moon Men is set on Earth and doesn't ever occur on the Moon.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
04:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Apollo 13 is in the category, because it's category, Apollo program films, is in the category. The nomination as formulated includes it. I do see that you wanted to remove that category in your !vote opinion.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
That changes the scope of the category, which your nomination does not say it does, as such "simply set on the Moon" is the wrong rationale to use, since it doesn't apply to several of the films.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
05:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A subcat could be created for films set on the moon but there is a need for a category for films about the moon to include the Apollo program films and similar films.
Cjc13 (
talk)
23:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. The use of "about" renders the category imprecise in its application, and there is a need to distinguish between fiction that employs the Moon as a physical setting and that which more "discusses" it (no part of
The Time Machine (2002 film) is truly set on the Moon, for example).
Category:Films set on the Moon and
Category:Films about the Moon could reasonably co-exist; however, since the wording of the former seems to apply to a majority of the features categorised here, I would endorse deletion of the latter and the transfer of its contents to the parent,
Category:Moon in fiction. SuperMarioMan14:59, 23 May 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.
Exclusive MLB clubs
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 both per nom. They are achievements that are considered to be significant in the sport, so the articles about them appropriate. But because they are inherently arbitrary (no one becomes considered a "powerful slugger" just because they hit 500 home runs as opposed to stopping at 499—those who hit 499 would also be considered a "powerful sluggers"), categories are not appropriate here per the guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Doing a google search for 500 home run club vs 499 home run club demonstrates that the distinction is not arbitrary. There are far more references to the former over the latter.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "arbitrary". It is not arbitrary in the world of MLB, because it is a commonly used cut-off that is regarded as significant. But it is an inherently arbitrary standard, since objectively there would probably be very little difference in quality between a player who retired with 500 home runs and one that retired with 499 or 490 or even 475 home runs. Since it's essentially an "in-world" distinction of significance, it makes sense to have lists, but not categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment for this and the two below on what "arbitrary" means. There is some confusion here as to what is meant by "arbitrary." It is not a synonym for "unimportant." It means "based on a value judgment." With most player categories, there is no value judgment: this player played this position, the player is from here, the player won this award. With a number of yards, there is an inherent value judgment that that specific number of home runs or yards or goals matters to someone. That is, it's arbitrary. In general, that's not what our categories do.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
06:24, 16 May 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.
National Hockey League players with single-season accomplishments
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 both I agree. We do need to be consistent with all the other point/yardage categories that have been deleted/listified for the very same reasons. (And of course the length of NHL regular seasons today vs. the original six era makes these benchmarks all the more
WP:OC#ARBITRARY). The lists do an excellent job of preserving and presenting this info.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete both per nom. They are achievements that are considered to be significant in the sport, so the lists are appropriate. But because they are inherently arbitrary, categories are not appropriate here per the guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment, by definition they are not arbitrary, since they are empirically defined, can be filled and there is significant coverage of this accomplishment.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
16:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "arbitrary". It is not arbitrary in the world of the NHL, because it is a commonly used cut-off that is regarded as significant. But it is an inherently arbitrary standard, since objectively there would probably be very little difference in quality between a player who finshed a season with 50 goals or 100 points and one that finished with 49 goals or 99 points. Since they are essentially "in-world" distinctions of significance, it makes sense to have lists, but not categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep it is not arbitrary, since 50 goals is a commonly recognized level of acheivement in the NHL. It is based on the 50-game season from the 1950's and Rocket Richard's 50 goals in 50 games benchmark. The assumption that "50" is arbitrary fails to recognize the history behind that level. It is not just a round number, it is something to do with the history of the NHL. It is therefore a significant and recognized achievement for these players, and a defining characteristic for their NHL careers.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
That provides a good answer to the question of "why" it has become a significant achievement in the NHL world, but I don't see how it changes the nature of the criteria itself.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It's clearly not arbitrary, and deletion on those grounds is not supported. And since it is significant in the career of an NHL player, it clearly is a defining characteristic of a player's career.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
05:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I would hesitate to say it's "clearly not arbitrary" given the other comments made on this page about what "arbitrary" might mean in this contect. I would venture that it's not so clear either way if there other users disagree on the point.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:21, 16 May 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:National Football League 10,000 yard rushers
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. Once again, if the NFL sees 10k yards as significant, then the cutoff is well defined and most certainly, not arbitrary.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It's an achievement that is considered to be significant in the sport, so a cited list would be appropriate. But because it is arbitrary, a category is not appropriate here per the guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:46, 14 May 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:NFL players with ALS
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.
Merge per nominator. This sort of intersection just leads to the proliferation of small categories, and impedes navigation. No objection to listification if anyone wants to do that. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong retain (per originator of this category): The incidence of ALS in football players is markedly increased. It is thought to be related to trauma, and may not be the same disease as non-trauma related ALS. Trauma related ALS currently appears to be unique from the dementia that develops in football players. (The pathology of the dementia is specific, and has not been shown to be present in the ALS cases.) There is a category for dementia in NFL players; given the concern about trauma in football players, this and ALS are exceedingly timely and important categories. I would not rename to encompass brain related categories, as this is NOT a brain injury. These are not just people with ALS (motor neuron disease is another name for the disease), but a very specific sub-group of such. Similarly, football players with dementia are not just "people" with dementia, but have been shown to be, for the most part, a unique sub-group with their own category in Wikipedia. This category deserves to remain intact. This is an issue of prominent public discussion and the dual identification remains relevant.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/3/451.fullMwinog2777 (
talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television stations in India
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:do not rename as nominated; however, it is apparent that further work on these is probably required as per the suggestions below that the existing scheme is not quite right.Good Ol’factory(talk)23:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Channels" is the word used in India as evidenced by most of the member sub-cats and articles. (I have not nominated the Hindi-language sub-cat as this can be split between India and elsewhere.) –
Fayenatic London(talk)07:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
This is a bit of an oddball case. I'd disagree with the renaming mainly because channels and stations are different. Jaya TV is a station that runs multiple channels including one that is eponymously named. This is the case for Sun TV too. The main channel is named for the station, while the rest follow conventions of Jaya/Sun Music, Jaya/Sun Movies etc. Our articles are quite bare and don't explain any of these things. Zee TV, Sony TV, Star TV are all pretty much similar, every one of them started their station with one channel eponymously named, and then expanded to have multiple channels. Exceptions to this nomenclature system are the newer stations which take on the corporate name and provide the channels different name (BIG CBS is an example for that). —
SpacemanSpiff18:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
The page
Sun TV (India) states that it is a TV station, and is the flagship channel of
Sun TV Network. It seems to me that stations and channels mean the same thing, and what you call a station - running multiple channels - is a network, which is different and has a separate category hierarchy. (This does get confusing, especially as some channels/stations include the word "network" in their name.) –
Fayenatic London(talk)12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Like I said the articles are really a mess. In the Indian context, a station is the physical broadcast infrastructure (Sun Network has many stations, each of which broadcast a few channels, the stations are the ones with the "main" license from the government, the channels are under that). However, given that the entire thing is such a mess in article space, I don't think any changes make much of a difference anyway).—
SpacemanSpiff13:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry, I wasn't around for a while to complete the conversation on the speedy. In the list above, it's possible for the first three groups to coexist to an extent (both stations and channels) while the fourth one is unlikely in its present form. There's a difference between channel and station per the licensing policies in India. IMO the channels should be language specific categories while the stations should be geo-specific, both are separately licensed. That said, the articles here are almost entirely about the (larger number of) channels and not the (few) stations, so changing them all to channels is fine as long as this isn't seen as precedent to remove station cats if and when suitable station articles are created. That said the "TV Channels in Mumbai" etc is technically confusing as all these channels are licensed for all-India, so it ought to be "TV Channels broadcast from Mumbai" etc. —
SpacemanSpiff03:59, 18 May 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:Marvel Cards
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.
LGBT clergy
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.
Just as an example of why this isn't needed, that rationale fails to demonstrate a meaningfully encyclopedic distinction between gay men and lesbians. The fact that a clergyperson is LGBT is certainly relevant to their career, but the fact that they're specifically a gay man or a lesbian woman or a bisexual of either gender doesn't really make a meaningful difference on top of the basic relevance of being LGBT.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge back per nom. It's far more important that they are LGBT, not that they are LGBT + male (or female) (or bisexual). I don't understand the rationale of breaking these down into the subdivisions of L, G, B, and T.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge this category. Also, entries in these categories should be limited to people who publiclyself identitified as LGBT at the same time they were clergy. Thus, a person who has publicly renounced their LGBT identity should not go in this category. The same would hold for someone who quit their role as clergy before they publicly identitfied as LGBT.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge back per nominator's rationale. Makes sense to keep the categories more clean rather than break out the sub-categories. --
Eric (
talk)
20:51, 18 May 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.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and perform necessary pruning/splitting manually. There's a feeling on both sides that there should also be an RFC on this matter to get an overall final consensus but for now the consensus is to rename these.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
10:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Restore the old name for the container category and all of its contained state-level categories, per discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 3#Church building back again that resulted in "no consensus" to rename the remaining state-level categories. The current naming situation is inconsistent. "Churches" is a better choice for these categories; although many of the individual articles in the contained categories are focused on buildings occupied by churches, many of them are about churches. While the term "church buildings" is specific to only one of these topics, the term "churches" can encompass both. If there is a perceived need for a category hierarchy for buildings occupied by churches (for example, to hold state-specific subcategories of
Category:Wooden churches in the United States), it can be created as a separate hierarchy.
Orlady (
talk)
21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strongest Support Possible: Why any of those categories where changed in the first place is beyond me. You don't get up on Sunday (or Saturday for some) and go to Church Building, you go to Church. There aren't churches called "St. Paul Catholic Church Building" or "St. Olaf Lutheran Church Building". Having a category renaming an entire category of buildings (which have always been called simply "Churches" or a "Church") is just silly. Surprised we don't have categories for "Hospital Buildings" and "School Buildings" and even "Schoolhouse Buildings". Just silly. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
22:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support, but prune - Some of the cats have subcats which are for former church buildings or other such building-related categories, which should probably be pruned out. (Note: While I did see this nom, I also received a
friendly notice about it as well.) - jc3723:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If you really read what the arguments are, then this should be a split. Buildings exist, are historic and have articles. If you decide on Sunday you are going to church that is ambiguous. First, in a place where you have choice, you decide what religion you will grace with your presence. Then you decide which building you will be going to or parish or whatever. This is based on many factors including the time of the service and the language the service is in or the rite or... If we want to classify by multiple factors, then go ahead. But just split what we have. We can argue all we want about which is right, but we are not going to know which category has the most members of a certain class. Rather then pushing the problem down the road, start by fixing it now.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I agree (prune/split). Some may also need renames per he comments of JPL below, where some religious groups use other words (like temple or synagogue) for community assembly. But the renames (and more complex splits) can be dealt with in future noms and/or at editorial discretion. - jc3703:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Churches and Church buildings are clearly different things. The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the
Church of England are Churches. They are not buildings. In Latter-day Saints usage no one would ever accept putting an article on a Church building in a category named "Churches". On the other hand some Churches exist without having a building at all. Churches are religious units, their size and whther they are stand alone congregations or networks of thousands varry, but to conflate Church and Church building into being the same term is just wrong. They are not the same thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - Although the given names of some denominations include the word "Church", there is a perfectly good generic noun to describe those entities: "denomination". On the other hand, no one has been able to suggest a satisfactory substitute term to characterize the type of local religious entity that is commonly known as a "church". --
Orlady (
talk)
02:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Propose moratorium, pending an RFC. I supported some of the CfDs which renamed these categories to the "church buildings" format, but am now neutral on the subject because it is clear that the result has not produced a stable consensus. There are good arguments on both sides of this debate, and no easy solution is in sight ... so I suggest that the best way forward is to close any CfDs on churches and their buildings and have a wider discussion at an RFC. It is clear so far that the process of having a series of individual discussions is not leading to consistent or stable outcomes, and the result is unhelpful to both readers and editors. An RFC provides an opportunity to clarify the the issues and lay the basis for a solution which which takes the controversy out of these discussions. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
08:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong support for proposal: As I explained before it is the proper name for churches category. Do not mixed with faith name - Church. It is also a category name similar to other wikis. --
Władysław Komorek (
talk)
09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nomination. As I pointed out in previous discussion, our articles do not in general separate out the story of the congregation from that of the place where it meets, for the reason that in general they cannot be separated.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I agree that two schemes seems to be the best option. Some articles are only about buildings, some are only about church organizations, and some are about both. One single category scheme can't deal appropriately with all three types of article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't know anything about your personal dispute with another editor or editors. I'm simply stating what I think would be the right thing to do in the future.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Given that
this discussion has not yet concluded, I'm not sure why this nomination was started. It seems to me that that one should be resolved, and then we should go from there based on how it is closed.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: My apologies for not searching to ensure that there were no related discussions ongoing before I started this one. I don't often deal with articles and categories about churches in Bangladesh, Honduras, etc., so my attention had not been drawn to that discussion. I have, however, been repeatedly annoyed by the fact that categories like
Category:Episcopal churches in Tennessee and articles that focus on the history, pastoral leadership, membership recruitment practices, politics, and similar non-building-related aspects of a local church are forced into categories (or subcategories of categories) that are named "Church buildings". Additionally, when creating new categories such as
Category:Baptist churches in Wisconsin (one that I created a day or so ago), I've found it annoying to have to check to see if the state in question was one that had a "churches" category or one that had a "church buildings" category. --
Orlady (
talk)
01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per my arguments in the current other discussion & previous ones, & per nom. BHg's suggestion of an RFC may be a good idea.
Johnbod (
talk)
02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. There was no benefit in splitting those categories in the first place. The world is sometimes ambiguous, get used to it.
Ephebi (
talk)
07:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment For as problematic as NRHP stubs have been to begin with, here's another issue I see which especially applies to many of those articles. If a church is primarily recognized for its building, such as being listed on the NRHP, will that be used as a pretense to ignore or disregard the presence of a current, active congregation regularly meeting in said building? I can actually see this being a problem in the case of small, rural communities, for which little is known to the world at large outside of census data.
RadioKAOS (
talk)
01:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per my parallel proposal at the country level, but agree that an RFC is desperately needed to bring consistency to the topic. --
BDD (
talk)
23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong support per my arguments and
Choster's at
CFD May 4 which is about the country level. IMHO the term is broad enough to cover all places of worship within a broad meaning of Christianity including cathedrals and LDS Tabernacles. Even former church buildings also serviced former church congregations; if an article currently says nothing about the people, that is probably because it is a stub awaiting expansion, set up from a register of buildings. Although it would be possible to set up sub-cats as container categories for such premises, I would see that as (i) unnecessary, (ii) highly liable to lead to mis-categorisation, over-categorisation and proliferation of inconsistent categories. –
Fayenatic London(talk)12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment A church is an organization, it is not a building. There is no organization that corresponds to the tabernacle. It is owned by a Church with much more assets, but there is no Church specifically connected to it. This would be like putting an article on a specific university building into
Category:Universities and colleges in Connecticut. The building is not the university.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. While I originally supported the narrow focus of the church buildings categories, this needs to be standardized. The church buildings categories did not get consensus, so let's put all this back.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
23:00, 25 May 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:Films about the Moon
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.
Suport. I am wondering though if we have a good criteria on how much of a work needs to be set in a place to be so characterized. Do we put a film in the setting of every city that shows up, or do we only go for the one main location, or do we compromise and use a "significant setting" rule?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose this was nominated in January
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 25 and several films that are NOT set on the Moon are still in the category. Apollo 13 is not set on the Moon, but it is about the Moon. Many films about moonshots and lunar programs don't ever get to be set on the Moon either. I think the Hercules vs Moon Men is set on Earth and doesn't ever occur on the Moon.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
04:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Apollo 13 is in the category, because it's category, Apollo program films, is in the category. The nomination as formulated includes it. I do see that you wanted to remove that category in your !vote opinion.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
That changes the scope of the category, which your nomination does not say it does, as such "simply set on the Moon" is the wrong rationale to use, since it doesn't apply to several of the films.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
05:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A subcat could be created for films set on the moon but there is a need for a category for films about the moon to include the Apollo program films and similar films.
Cjc13 (
talk)
23:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. The use of "about" renders the category imprecise in its application, and there is a need to distinguish between fiction that employs the Moon as a physical setting and that which more "discusses" it (no part of
The Time Machine (2002 film) is truly set on the Moon, for example).
Category:Films set on the Moon and
Category:Films about the Moon could reasonably co-exist; however, since the wording of the former seems to apply to a majority of the features categorised here, I would endorse deletion of the latter and the transfer of its contents to the parent,
Category:Moon in fiction. SuperMarioMan14:59, 23 May 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.
Exclusive MLB clubs
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 both per nom. They are achievements that are considered to be significant in the sport, so the articles about them appropriate. But because they are inherently arbitrary (no one becomes considered a "powerful slugger" just because they hit 500 home runs as opposed to stopping at 499—those who hit 499 would also be considered a "powerful sluggers"), categories are not appropriate here per the guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Doing a google search for 500 home run club vs 499 home run club demonstrates that the distinction is not arbitrary. There are far more references to the former over the latter.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "arbitrary". It is not arbitrary in the world of MLB, because it is a commonly used cut-off that is regarded as significant. But it is an inherently arbitrary standard, since objectively there would probably be very little difference in quality between a player who retired with 500 home runs and one that retired with 499 or 490 or even 475 home runs. Since it's essentially an "in-world" distinction of significance, it makes sense to have lists, but not categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment for this and the two below on what "arbitrary" means. There is some confusion here as to what is meant by "arbitrary." It is not a synonym for "unimportant." It means "based on a value judgment." With most player categories, there is no value judgment: this player played this position, the player is from here, the player won this award. With a number of yards, there is an inherent value judgment that that specific number of home runs or yards or goals matters to someone. That is, it's arbitrary. In general, that's not what our categories do.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
06:24, 16 May 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.
National Hockey League players with single-season accomplishments
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 both I agree. We do need to be consistent with all the other point/yardage categories that have been deleted/listified for the very same reasons. (And of course the length of NHL regular seasons today vs. the original six era makes these benchmarks all the more
WP:OC#ARBITRARY). The lists do an excellent job of preserving and presenting this info.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete both per nom. They are achievements that are considered to be significant in the sport, so the lists are appropriate. But because they are inherently arbitrary, categories are not appropriate here per the guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment, by definition they are not arbitrary, since they are empirically defined, can be filled and there is significant coverage of this accomplishment.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
16:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "arbitrary". It is not arbitrary in the world of the NHL, because it is a commonly used cut-off that is regarded as significant. But it is an inherently arbitrary standard, since objectively there would probably be very little difference in quality between a player who finshed a season with 50 goals or 100 points and one that finished with 49 goals or 99 points. Since they are essentially "in-world" distinctions of significance, it makes sense to have lists, but not categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep it is not arbitrary, since 50 goals is a commonly recognized level of acheivement in the NHL. It is based on the 50-game season from the 1950's and Rocket Richard's 50 goals in 50 games benchmark. The assumption that "50" is arbitrary fails to recognize the history behind that level. It is not just a round number, it is something to do with the history of the NHL. It is therefore a significant and recognized achievement for these players, and a defining characteristic for their NHL careers.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
That provides a good answer to the question of "why" it has become a significant achievement in the NHL world, but I don't see how it changes the nature of the criteria itself.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It's clearly not arbitrary, and deletion on those grounds is not supported. And since it is significant in the career of an NHL player, it clearly is a defining characteristic of a player's career.
70.24.251.208 (
talk)
05:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I would hesitate to say it's "clearly not arbitrary" given the other comments made on this page about what "arbitrary" might mean in this contect. I would venture that it's not so clear either way if there other users disagree on the point.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:21, 16 May 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:National Football League 10,000 yard rushers
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. Once again, if the NFL sees 10k yards as significant, then the cutoff is well defined and most certainly, not arbitrary.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It's an achievement that is considered to be significant in the sport, so a cited list would be appropriate. But because it is arbitrary, a category is not appropriate here per the guidelines.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:46, 14 May 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:NFL players with ALS
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.
Merge per nominator. This sort of intersection just leads to the proliferation of small categories, and impedes navigation. No objection to listification if anyone wants to do that. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong retain (per originator of this category): The incidence of ALS in football players is markedly increased. It is thought to be related to trauma, and may not be the same disease as non-trauma related ALS. Trauma related ALS currently appears to be unique from the dementia that develops in football players. (The pathology of the dementia is specific, and has not been shown to be present in the ALS cases.) There is a category for dementia in NFL players; given the concern about trauma in football players, this and ALS are exceedingly timely and important categories. I would not rename to encompass brain related categories, as this is NOT a brain injury. These are not just people with ALS (motor neuron disease is another name for the disease), but a very specific sub-group of such. Similarly, football players with dementia are not just "people" with dementia, but have been shown to be, for the most part, a unique sub-group with their own category in Wikipedia. This category deserves to remain intact. This is an issue of prominent public discussion and the dual identification remains relevant.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/128/3/451.fullMwinog2777 (
talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television stations in India
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:do not rename as nominated; however, it is apparent that further work on these is probably required as per the suggestions below that the existing scheme is not quite right.Good Ol’factory(talk)23:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Channels" is the word used in India as evidenced by most of the member sub-cats and articles. (I have not nominated the Hindi-language sub-cat as this can be split between India and elsewhere.) –
Fayenatic London(talk)07:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
This is a bit of an oddball case. I'd disagree with the renaming mainly because channels and stations are different. Jaya TV is a station that runs multiple channels including one that is eponymously named. This is the case for Sun TV too. The main channel is named for the station, while the rest follow conventions of Jaya/Sun Music, Jaya/Sun Movies etc. Our articles are quite bare and don't explain any of these things. Zee TV, Sony TV, Star TV are all pretty much similar, every one of them started their station with one channel eponymously named, and then expanded to have multiple channels. Exceptions to this nomenclature system are the newer stations which take on the corporate name and provide the channels different name (BIG CBS is an example for that). —
SpacemanSpiff18:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)reply
The page
Sun TV (India) states that it is a TV station, and is the flagship channel of
Sun TV Network. It seems to me that stations and channels mean the same thing, and what you call a station - running multiple channels - is a network, which is different and has a separate category hierarchy. (This does get confusing, especially as some channels/stations include the word "network" in their name.) –
Fayenatic London(talk)12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Like I said the articles are really a mess. In the Indian context, a station is the physical broadcast infrastructure (Sun Network has many stations, each of which broadcast a few channels, the stations are the ones with the "main" license from the government, the channels are under that). However, given that the entire thing is such a mess in article space, I don't think any changes make much of a difference anyway).—
SpacemanSpiff13:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Sorry, I wasn't around for a while to complete the conversation on the speedy. In the list above, it's possible for the first three groups to coexist to an extent (both stations and channels) while the fourth one is unlikely in its present form. There's a difference between channel and station per the licensing policies in India. IMO the channels should be language specific categories while the stations should be geo-specific, both are separately licensed. That said, the articles here are almost entirely about the (larger number of) channels and not the (few) stations, so changing them all to channels is fine as long as this isn't seen as precedent to remove station cats if and when suitable station articles are created. That said the "TV Channels in Mumbai" etc is technically confusing as all these channels are licensed for all-India, so it ought to be "TV Channels broadcast from Mumbai" etc. —
SpacemanSpiff03:59, 18 May 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:Marvel Cards
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.
LGBT clergy
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.
Just as an example of why this isn't needed, that rationale fails to demonstrate a meaningfully encyclopedic distinction between gay men and lesbians. The fact that a clergyperson is LGBT is certainly relevant to their career, but the fact that they're specifically a gay man or a lesbian woman or a bisexual of either gender doesn't really make a meaningful difference on top of the basic relevance of being LGBT.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge back per nom. It's far more important that they are LGBT, not that they are LGBT + male (or female) (or bisexual). I don't understand the rationale of breaking these down into the subdivisions of L, G, B, and T.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Upmerge this category. Also, entries in these categories should be limited to people who publiclyself identitified as LGBT at the same time they were clergy. Thus, a person who has publicly renounced their LGBT identity should not go in this category. The same would hold for someone who quit their role as clergy before they publicly identitfied as LGBT.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge back per nominator's rationale. Makes sense to keep the categories more clean rather than break out the sub-categories. --
Eric (
talk)
20:51, 18 May 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.