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.
Having "music" after the genre would be appropriate for a genre like "rock", given that "rock groups" could refer to types of
rock, but not this. Most of these genre categories I've seen just say "[Nationality] [genre] groups" and not "[Nationality] [genre] music groups". Lachlan Foley22:28, 13 March 2013 (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:Communist regime
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 - the category contained articles not just on states, but on non-state entities as well (i.e.
Khmer Rouge). However the
Category:Communist states category is the one that should be used here, as "Communist regime" does not fit in either tree its editor placed it in, and I'm not sure where it would. Note that the category was depopulted out of process by another editor (not one of the above), I am reverting that. -
The BushrangerOne ping only00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Both the category and the nomination are rubbish, and I am not sure whether of two is more rubbish. The only purpose which could justify existence of the category is to list institutions and phenomena typical for communist states, which is incompatible with stuffing it with examples of states, just like
United States should not belong to
category: Capitalism. One should not “propose merging to communist states”. One should cleanse all inappropriate items instead, and look on what will remain of the category. The Bushranger, stop doing the wrong thing such as
[1], please.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
15:54, 14 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Scotch-Irish descent
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.
Oppose - "Scottish-Irish" is a single ethnicity, for Protestants from Northern Ireland who emigrated to US. The fact that these ethnic categories seem to be recognised in US seems to me a reason for retaining the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:47, 19 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Portuguese descent
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:Fictional American people of Danish descent
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:People with missing ears
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: I don't believe this is
WP:DEFINING to most individuals in the category, with the obvious
exception. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Most of the articles don't mention this in the lead. Why restrict this just to missing ears? What about missing limbs, etc? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Missing", as in the owner does not know where it is? Or "missing", meaning less than two, whether by defect of birth, accident, wound, self-infliction, etc? Way too broad and not defining in most cases.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, being an amputee is a defining characteristic, as it can have a profound impact on how a person performs even the most basic functions of daily living — having to walk on your hands because you don't have any legs, having to use your feet to feed yourself because you don't have hands, etc. — whereas the consequences of missing an ear are predominantly cosmetic. These people don't normally lack the inner ear structures that actually do the ear's job; they lack the outer flap of cartilage and skin that define the ear's outward physical appearance. They still have an ear canal and an eardrum and a cochlea in most cases, and those generally still work — it just doesn't look like a normal ear from the outside. (And even when they do lack the inner structures, that's almost always part of a larger and more defining syndrome of physical defects rather than a defining characteristic in and of itself.) By the same token, while we do indeed categorize people as amputees when they're missing one or more arms or legs, we do not categorize people by minor (i.e. finger or toe) amputations whose impact is more modest and cosmetic in nature rather than being truly disabling. So there might certainly be some cases where the missing ear points toward a more legitimately defining and categorizable physical condition, but the simple fact of missing an ear is not defining by itself. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:32, 18 March 2013 (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 women writers by city
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:Delete the parent category and merge subcategories to all appropriate targets. This triple intersection of gender, occupation and city of origin is not helpful and only isolates women in a subcategory. We don't split
Category:People from Chicago, Illinois by gender so we certainly shouldn't split
Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois. In fact, we don't even split
Category:People from Illinois according to gender. If there is something distinct in the literary production of women's writers from Chicago (which I doubt), then a list would be a better solution.
Pichpich (
talk)
15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, I don't really see the point of splitting the by-US-state writer categories according to gender. But first things first.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose we do not split people cats by gender, but we do split writer cats by gender. I see no reason why we should not do it at the city level. We have already agreed to in some cases split sportspeople by gender at the city level, I see no reason why we should not do the same for writers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
"Occupation by city" intersections are, in the vast majority of cases, a deeply undesirable bag of crap that should actually be getting cut back rather than expanded further. Excepting some mayors and city councillors, frankly, we almost never actually need occupations to be subdivided any more narrowly than the state level.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. This is just a triple intersection
WP:OCAT which is ghettoizing women writers for no really compelling reason, not really a very helpful division at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- Women novelists tend to write a different calss of fiction from male novelists. Gender is thus a valid distinction here. It is probably less singificant in non-fiction, particularly academic writing.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose, writers are split at the top level into women, as women are recognized as having a different approach to the discipline, per peterk. The cities listed are the major metro areas with significant author populations, and a local literary/academic culture. As long as the categories for the cities are jam packed with names, a way to break them up, esp. with only 1 sub cat, makes sense. ps i moved "women writers from sfbay area" out of "women writers by city" as its not a city, but a region.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
04:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)reply
As Bearcat noted, this is not splitting a category jam packed with names, it's ghettoizing women in a subcategory. And we've never split these city-specific categories according to ethnicity or century (to name just a couple of options) which would probably be more meaningful than the gender split. Why? Because these categories don't need splitting. The Chicago and SF categories have less than 300 writers, Boston, LA and Seattle less that 100, Portland about a 100. That is clearly not jam packed. Even the NYC category has a very manageable 600 entries. I also want to stress that I agree with two of your statements. Men and women do have somewhat distinct approaches to writing and separate top-level categories for men and women writers makes sense. It's also true that some cities can have somewhat distinct literary scenes and this can justify (in some instances) a city-specific category. But existing categories don't need to be intersected systematically.
Pichpich (
talk)
21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I should add that since most of YOUR argument is valid (or at least completely rational) as well, i dont see upmerging as a huge loss, or completely contraindicated by other categorization policies. so i would change mine to Weak Oppose.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:54, 30 March 2013 (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:Firefly (TV series) fan films
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.
Weak oppose - given the
cult status of Firefly, this seems like a category that has a more than reasonable chance of expansion. Whether that means "keep" or "delete now, recreate later", I'm not 100% sure though, but would lean to
WP:RETAIN if pressed. -
The BushrangerOne ping only15:18, 20 March 2013 (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.
Fan films
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:Songs produced by Linda McCartney
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:Delete. This category contains all the songs from
one album, and each member of this category is a redirect. The album is also a member of
Category:Albums produced by Linda McCartney which doubly makes this category redundant. Plus, a category full of redirects to the same page is an impediment to navigation; it wastes readers' time..
Richhoncho (
talk)
13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. There really should be a speedy criterion for the deletion of categories which consist only of redirects to the same page. A category like that is always a waste of the reader's time. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete if we ever get more than a half dozen of her produced songs to have articles, MAYBE we could recreate. for now, essentially an empty category.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:57, 30 March 2013 (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:2020s in Ghana
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:History of China in operas
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:Delete. This category and its subcategories which I am also nominating below seem to be a clear case of
over categorization. The parent category,
Category:Operas set in China, had only 14 articles in it, and is likely to grow very, very slowly, if at all. This new category and its multiple subcats, contain in total 4 articles and add several extra obstacles to the reader simply looking for operas set in China. Note also that the parent category of Category:Operas set in China is
Category:Operas by country of setting and these subcats introduce an intersection of setting + specific historical period. If nothing else this category does not belong as a subcat of
Category:Operas set in China.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If all the articles going to upmerge, then at least to relevant period of history in fiction, to help the identification of articles and navigations.--
NeoBatfreak (
talk)
04:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Overcategorisation. No need when
Category:Operas set in China takes care of the handful of works concerned. Making "History of Mongolia in operas" a subcategory of "History of China in operas" is also likely to set the cat among the pigeons. --
Folantin (
talk)
10:41, 14 March 2013 (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:People from Kensington and Chelsea (London borough)
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 category was recently renamed from (district) disambiguation to (London borough) dabbing, along with the other People-from-London-borough categories. However, while cleaning up after the move, I came across
this discussion from a few years back, in which it was mooted that if it passed (it did), the dab could be removed from this category. And there are no other "Kensington and Chelsea"s for people to be from. So, is it more important that this retain the (London borough) disambiguator like all other subcats of
Category:People from London by borough, or should it have the unneeded disambiguator removed like the other subcategories of
Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea?
The BushrangerOne ping only08:43, 13 March 2013 (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:Organizations in cryptography
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:French rugby union championship
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.
Reply Ambiguity in category titles has much more damaging consequences, because it leads to articles being miscategorised and the software makes it very hard to monitor such miscategorisations. That's why we often disambiguate category names even in cases where the head article is not disambiguated (e.g. the
Birmingham is the head article for
Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is recentism. The competition under various guises has lasted far longer than the Top 14. Keep as is, or create an umbrella category and split into two subdivisions.
FruitMonkey (
talk)
00:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose it used to be quite different to a single division before the establishment of the Top 14, and I think the renaming will be quite confusing. Neither name is perfect, but at least the current one is descriptive. -
Shuddetalk12:19, 9 April 2013 (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:Television series by Buena Vista Television
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: Disney no longer uses the "Buena Vista" brand name for its television unit, instead the Disney or ABC brands (or both) are used. It's been like this for half a decade.
Freshh (
talk)
17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Split, I think. I have long had a concern about deleting brands when there is a name change. The article appears to have a list of many of the items that should be included in
Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television. Even though the name changed, I believe that most of these will display the old studio name when they are viewed. So while the studio name no longer exists, the work it produced does still exist retaining the name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Commnet -- For alumni categories, the alumni of a renamed or merged college are treated as having attended the successor. Why not for TV? If the categories are large, we might nevertheless use the old name for a category of historic articles from the period when the brand was in use.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
But alumni of a school that is renamed may in fact not use the new name. Many/most/all of them still use the old school name. So as I said above, I have long had a concern about deleting brands which is what happens when we do this. Doing this for schools and other places does not make it right here or for that matter there.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If you tried to split out the alumni of
Wayne University from those who graduated from the later
Wayne State University you would create a bigger mess than you would fix. Then there is
Truman State University and some other universities in both Missouri and Alabama that have gone through so many name changes no one other than alumni would realize the various names all apply to the same place.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Truman State University is on its 7th name. At some points it has changed names multiple times within the time a student would take to graduate. It really makes no sense to sub-divide the alumni categories for each name change.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:43, 21 March 2013 (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:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks
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: The current title is a bit odd, grammatically, since it leaves open the possibility of administrators who are willing to consider placing self-requested blocks but unwilling to actually place them. The proposed title is shorter, clearer, and more closely matches the convention within
Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Willing to consider renaming. I'm not sure on this one. As noted at
WP:SELFBLOCK, such requests are typically refused. The admins in this category are likely to be those who will look at each case on its merits, and it seems to me that the renaming implies that they are "admins who will act on any self-block request". I'd like to see some feedback from some of the 17 admins who have placed themselves in this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:46, 24 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Chaco 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.
Nominator's rationale: As determined in several recent CfDs, "military equipment by conflict" is not a sufficiently defining concept to require categorisation, particularly in the case of a minor conflict such as this. Furthermore, two of the four articles in this category are not even about military equipment of the war, but operations in the war, already properly categorised in
Category:Chaco War; the other two are ships, and are properly categorised elsewhere as well.
The BushrangerOne ping only05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Chaco War at least in theory, in practice I think everything may still be in that category. The contents are two articles about aspects of the Chaco War, an article on a class of gun boats largely built for Paraguay to use in the war, and an article on a specific ship involved in the war, so it seems that they all belong with the war, but only two are on military equitment, and it is not worth having a category with two articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:49, 14 March 2013 (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:Early American naval commanders
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:Delete I don't think it's wise to split US Navy officers by period and unless I missed something, there's no "by period" categorization of officers of any country. In this case, there's another important problem: "early" is not a well-defined era of American history so it's impossible to determine the exact criteria for inclusion in the category.
Pichpich (
talk)
15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, you are correct. 'Early' is not defined. Can we split and rename the category? How about 18th Century American naval commanders and 19th Century American naval commanders and 20th Century American naval commanders? It would seem lumping all American naval commanders under one umbrella isn't the best way to go either. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment on the by-century proposal. I don't think this is really much better because centuries are also arbitrary cutoffs. If we really want to classify officers by time period, it would make more sense to classify by armed conflict. (But honestly I don't see much value in that either.)
Pichpich (
talk)
20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply to comments: 'Officers' are not always 'commanders' of ships. And using 'armed conflict' to define a Cat' doesn't quite get it because many commanders were involved in several wars. e.g.
Stephen Decatur fought in the
Quasi War with France, the
War of 1812 and the
First and
Second Barbary Wars, all of which occurred in the 19th century, as did
John Rodgers and others. Defining the Cat' by century seems the best way to go as this would encompass several wars/conflicts at the same time. There might be cases where a commander fought in wars that took place in different centuries but this is (very) rare. Can't even think of one off hand. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
00:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Certainly in the RN it was common in the Napoleonic era, and for Japan/Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Maybe this is less true of the USN but equally it might be best to think of a format that can be replicated by other navies if required.
Le Deluge (
talk)
14:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Insert: Opps.. You're correct. Decatur in this case would fit into two such categories. 18th Century and 19th Century American naval officers. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment "Officers" is a more useful, general term - "commander" is a bit fuzzier and I doubt an "officers" category would become too overcrowded. Go with the more general term to start with. If you're going with "xth century", then perhaps "commissioned in xth century" or "born in xth century" might be more precise.
Le Deluge (
talk)
14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree with Le deluge. Let's make the category as broad as possible and then see just how big it gets. We can subdivide from there if it's too large.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
15:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
But
Category:American film actors has over 10,000 articles and we have not seen fit to divide it by time period, so size alone is not persuasive. We might also argue that wars would be a better way to divide. However I think especially in the early 19th-century enough of these people were involved in multiple conflicts that wars would be a split too far, but century is a good way to devide them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Numerous entries, size, is one of the most persuasive reasons for creating sub categories. The reason we have cat's is to sort large numbers of entries -- and on that note I would highly recommend finding sub cat's for 'American film actors'. Sub dividing by 'War' in the case of 'American navel captains' could get tacky because as I mentioned above, many officers have fought in two or more wars.
Stephen Decatur and
John Rodgers for example fought in four different wars -- all in the 19th century. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. While we have the sub Cat's mentioned by Benea, we still don't have any specific to e.g.the War of 1812 (one for People, not naval officers) , the American Civil War, the Barbary Wars, etc, so my thinking was that since all of these wars occurred during the 19th century, and since many officers fought in several, as discussed above, we also need a Cat' specific to this general era. Or should we make cat's specific to all the individual wars -- which would result in just as many if not more Cat's. If anything we should simply rename the Cat proposed for deletion to Category:Early American naval officers (1775 - 1815) This would cover Naval Officers of the Revolution, Quasi-War, both Barbary wars and the War of 1812. Again, there is always an area of overlap among Cat's and many officers accordingly fit into two or more. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply : I don't think we don't need to create a Cat for each Barbary War, while making cat's for all the individual (often lesser) wars will become redundant, some officers fitting into several wars. Overlap is to be expected, but I think only to a point. As I mentioned several officers, that I know of, I'm sure there's more, would fit into four or more Cat's if they were defined by individual wars. While trying to replicate a Cat' structure of another country may sound 'consistent' on the surface it appears not to be the practical way to go for the American navy. It would be nice to have one Cat' for naval officers (there are many) who served in this one defining and unique era of America history. (1775-1815) That would spare us a lot of additional Cat's. If you still would like to create the Cat's you mentioned above they could be sub Cat's to this more encompassing Cat' of 1778-1815. In any case this is really getting to be a discretionary call. For now I still think we should go the simpler route and simply rename the Cat up for deletion. A cat for naval officers of this general period (Early American) would serve well. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
16:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
What's the problem with having four or more cats on an article? Why not have a category for each Barbary War? Why is it not practical, and finally, what is this defining and apparently unique period of history, that lumps together five wars, with different opponents, over a thirty year period, with intervening periods of peace? This is all getting very subjective. We've tried to define it as 'early', by century, and finally by this arbitrary period by dates. Categories by conflict do not overlap, they are discrete periods of conflict, therefore there will be no redundancy for lesser wars because some personnel fit into several categories. The present suggested system would collect officers who served only in the Revolutionary War with those who served only in the Second Barbary War 35 years later, only for the sake of those officers whose career spanned the entire 35 year period. Organising it along the lines of the British one allows those persons who served in one conflict to be categorised immediately with those who fought beside them in the same conflict, rather than in a vague 35 year block based on someone's definition of defining and unique.
Benea (
talk)
17:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, your arguments are apparently sound. Okay, we need to make a few added cat's for wars, and if a given officer fits into two or more of them (Decatur and Rodgers would fit into at least four) then, on retrospect, this is all well and good. Thanks for your thoughts. A couple of last questions: Should we be making separate Cat's for a given war for Admirals and Officers -- and will we be separating Army officers from Naval officers? I hope so. If we lump too many military types, ranks along with 'personnel' into one Cat it seems it will defeat the purpose of categorization i.e.the effort of sorting and organizing large groups of names. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay Benea, but as you pointed out on 22 Feb, we already have
Category:United States Navy officers and
Category:United States Navy admirals. How do we integrate War-Cat's with them? We can't place an individual War-Cat under Admirals and Officers -- and we can't place Admirals and Officers under each War-Cat, so it seems War-Cat's and Cat's for Admirals and Officers must be stand alone cats and independent of each other in terms of sub Cat's. Looking at Cat's for both Admirals and Officers there seems to be other items we should be mindful of. For example 'Continental Navy officers' (Revolutionary period, war specific) is under the Cat' for Naval officers, but there is no corresponding Cat' for 'Continental Navy Admirals', for openers. IMO, it seems a condensation of and reordering of Cat's is needed. We have cats for 'personnel', 'Officers, Admirals and Commodores' with war-specific cats mixed into the works.Correction : There were no Admirals until
David Farragut (of the Civil War) came along. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)reply
A bit later I will begin removing the names from the
Category:Early American naval commanders if there are no objections or other suggestions. After navigating through the maze of categories it seems there are enough of them, perhaps too many, that seem to cover any individual that may have otherwise fit into the 'Early American' category. Perhaps I was too quick to create that category. My apologies for any inconvenience or trouble I may have caused. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename -- Deletion should not be an option anyway: if anything we should merge. Any potential merge target will already be a colossally large category, which we probably ought to split. I do not think that a split by war would be appropriate, as it would lead to multiple similar categoriusations in some cases. I would suggest
Category:American ante-bellum naval commanders for all periods proceding the Civil War.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Subdivide by century at least with 18th and 19th century cats. I do not think war would be useful in all cases since so many officers were involved in multiple samll wars.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:10, 24 March 2013 (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:Military operations post-1945
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 category is unnecessary. It contains two types of sub-categories - by-date categories and by-country(/organisation) categories (for 3 post-1945 organisations). The by-date categories should be upmerged to
Category:Military operations by period. The country/organisation categories can be removed from this category - they're still categorized in the more relevant
Category:Military operations by country. This is a step towards fixing the partial overlap between
"post-1945" categories and
"20th-century" categories (an operation in 1977 would be eligable for both these cats, but neither of these cats can be a subcat of the other). Note: This is an alternative to
merging the "post-1945 period" category - if that category is merged then this category should be kept.
DexDor (
talk)
06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
do nothing The nomination makes no sense. It is to upmerge a specific period category into a container category of periods. The articles are not periods, they certainly cannot be directly placed in this container category which is only for period subcats.
Hmains (
talk)
18:37, 17 February 2013 (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:Military operations of the post-1945 period
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 or merge. This category is a subcategory of
Category:Military operations post-1945. It is defined as being for military operations from the end of the Second World War to the year 2000. So in other words, it's acting as "20th-century military operations post-1945". The current name is not clear at all. I'm not sure if we should simply upmerge this to
Category:Military operations post-1945 or if we should try to come up with a name that works. There is no broader scheme for military topics in the 20th century that are post-1945.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Keep/Rename (category creator) I've no objection to a rename to "Category:Military operations 1945-2000" (or similar) or to "Category:20th century military operations after World War II" (which IMO isn't really a triple intersection), but I think it's
the (original) "post-1945" category that should be upmerged/deleted rather than this one (I was/am
planning to take that to CfD myself) - see
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_8#Category:Military_operations_post-1945. The background to this is that we currently have both "post-1945" categories and "20th-century" categories which (for the period 1946-2000) overlap, but neither of these categories can be a subcat of the other - thus an operation in 1977 could/should be categorized in both although article editors may be unaware of this. The advantage of the "post-1945 period" category (I agree it's not an ideal name) is that it's defined to fit within the "20th-century" category. If the community accepts this rearrangement of the "military operations" categories then the other "post-1945" categories could be replaced in a similar way. Consideration could then be given to renaming these categories (which have an intro referring to 1946-2000) "back" to just "post-1945". Many of the articles in these categories are in "Cold War" categories which reduces the amount of recategorization needed.
DexDor (
talk) 06:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
DexDor (
talk)
06:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
There's several problems with that idea (which I had considered myself) - "M.o. of the Cold War period" includes the word period which I think is what the nom is trying to avoid (and would be a slightly strange way to categorize articles about any ops by countries not involved in the Cold War), "M.o. of the Cold War" would be OK as a category but doesn't solve this problem because it can't contain any ops that weren't part of the Cold War, and (most significantly) "M.o. of the post-Cold War period" has exactly the same problem as "M.o. post-1945" (it doesn't fit within the 20th-century category) - in fact it's even worse as editors/readers are more likely to consider 2001 etc part of the post-Cold War period than part of the post-1945 period.
DexDor (
talk)
06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Military operations since World War II. A while back we did a major cull on 20th/21st century categories as an attempt to have a past/current distinction. In the field of war, the end of WWII is clearly major punctuation point, marking a change of era. We need to resist the urge to split things further until it is clear that the category is too full for comfort.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Support
Category:Military operations 1945–2000, and upmerge some subcategories of
Category:Cold War to subcategories of this category. A subcategory covering most (1947-91 or 1946-90?) of the 1945–2000 period is unnecessary, and it is unclear whether the “Cold War” category covers all events within the period or those related to the USA/USSR/NATO only.
Hugo999 (
talk)
13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Military operations from 1945-2000. With the events of Sep. 11, 2001 and the start of the "War on Terror" at that point, ending one category in 2000 and starting the next in 2001 makes sense. Anyway we allow 20th-century and 21st-century categories when they are part of a longer series. We only disallow them when by their nature they will not have anything predating 1900 and so will only be two categories. That is not an issue here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
We discorage a 20th/21st century split when those are the only two categories. We have lots of places where we split between the two as part of a much larger sequence. It would make sense to do so here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:45, 21 March 2013 (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:Indian actors by language
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale not all of the contents of these categories are actually Indian actors. Most are actually categories for actors grouping them by the languages of the films they acted in. I really think we would be best off reworking these into just categories that connected acting with the language of films. A seperate set for acting by language in theatre might work. I am somewhat heistant to rename these categories, because I do not want to expand them to include a wrold-wide structure. However there are several non-Indians in these categories, so it would seem best to stop treating them as child categories of
Category:Indian actors. To fit in that category a person needs to be a national of India. However to fit in these categories people only have to have acted in certain languages.
Category:Tamil film actors and
Category:Bengali film actors may not even be limited to films made in India, and many Hindi film actors are clearly Pakistanis who were acting in India-made films and clearly not Indian nationals. There are also other people who show up who are British, Brazilian, American, Australian and maybe other nationals as well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I am not clear whether the categories are actually native language ones or Indian state ones, but we should have them a Tamil speaker will probably not perform well in a Hindi/Urdu language film. Since the languages are ones spoken only in India, upmerging (per nom) acheives little: yes I know that there are langauges shared with neighbours within the subcontinent - Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually lots and lots and lots of people have been in Tamil and Hindi films. The overlaps between these various categories is very high. Beyond that, the Hindi category could not possibly be a state category, since it is not limited to one state. The various films categories are clearly being used as categories to group together people who appeared in those films. These, as I mentioned above, contain lots of actors who are not Indian nationals. This is especially true of
Category:Hindi film actors which has both a large number of Pakistani nationals, and is also probably the one with the most people who are from other countries as well, including one article on a British man who spent 6 months leatrning Hindi so he could act in a Hindi film. The claim these languages are spoken only in India is false. Most obviously Bengali is spoken outside India. Hindi is also spoken in Fiji and many other places outside the subcontinent. Also, Peter Kingiron has entirely ignored the fact that the current name is saying the people are Indian, when as I have shown many of the people involved in the film actors cats are not Indian at all, but are foriegn nationals who came to India only to perform in films there.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment if you want a sense of why this is clearly not a by state category look at the article on
Rati Agnihotri. She is in five film-language categories, none related to where she was born, and is also in another people category that seems to refelct where in India her ancestors came from, and does not overlap with any of her film film-language cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Another example of the complexities of these categories can be seen by looking at the article on
Kirron Kher. Currently she is only in a Hindi realted category. The vast majority of the films she was in were Hindi, but she was also in English, Bengali and Punjabi language films and a few more. I half wonder if with such heavy cross-over between languages these categories are heading towards being performer by performance overcategorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:22, 12 February 2013 (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:Museums of Ancient Rome
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. There were objections to the name but I have not managed to extract an improved version from this discussion;
Category:Egyptological collections works, but there's no corresponding name for these cases; and the existing names correspond to parent categories (e.g.
Category:Ancient Greece). I will add category explanations requiring that the museums be centred on the era or possess significant collections from it. If anyone is then willing to check and prune the contents, that would be welcome. –
FayenaticLondon17:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Inclusion criteria is simply too subjective. What percentage of a museum's collection needs to fall into this area to merit categorization? If you look at the categories for the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not close to 50%!
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete—At first glance I thought that this would be a category of Museums that the Ancient Romans had developed (possibly alongside the Circus). However, I'm disappointed to find that it's modern museums about Ancient Rome. So, rename would be the conclusion. But then I looked more closely at the inclusion criteria only to find that our private collection (which happens to have a few Roman coins) would qualify me to add our house to the category. This being the case, this is not a good way to categorise museums.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Re-name or delete There were museums in ancient Rome? Who'd have guessed? Unless it's meant to say "Museums concerned with Ancient Rome", which is entirely different.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename - I created both categories to help people looking for museums featuring collections related to Ancient Greece and Rome. The criteria can certainly be tightened and the categories better named to reflect the collections. There are many other categories that are broad enough for flexibility. Wikipedia should not be too rigid but should be used as a helpful guide. If you delete the categories, it will be harder to find museums relating to Ancient Greece and Rome.
Jllm06 (
talk)
12:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Featuring is subjective and not a good criteria for determining membership in a category. These categories came up when I happened on the MET article and there are about 11 different collection related categories. If we take your use of 'collections' or even 'featured collections', this is really subject material for a list rather then a category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment if we limited these categories to museums that had this as their main attraction if would make sense, but we don't, so I think we should just scap these categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yea, that is a concern. Following the MET example, I don't believe that anyone would not classify this in
Category:Art museums in New York City. But should it also be in
Category:Asian art museums in New York? I would say yes if there was a dedicated building for that purpose. And being in
Category:Fashion museums in the United States could probably be challenged. The big problem is how do you devise an objective set of inclusion criteria for these? I think the two in this nomination are not really affected by these issues. However the others discussed here raise some interesting questions that I don't have answers for. I suspect that we will not and should not try to answer those questions here. I do think we need a separate discussion to see if in fact we need to do something and if so what.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This category (and some of these cited as parallels) are mixing up museums with Anceitn Roman material as part of their collections (a performance by performer type category) with museums solely (or mainly) about anciemt Rome. The latter with typically be excavated sites with a museum attached. The
British Museum is in a subcategory, but its collections include ethnographic material from lost part of the world. On the other hand, Pompeii and Herculaneum will be solely about Ancient Rome (or rather the Roman Empire, or Roman period).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Strong Keep, but probably rename I don't really see the problems, except that large numbers of European provincial museums will eventually be here, as the vast amount of stuff the Romans left under the ground forms a great part of their collections, often the majority by object count, even if most of it is pottery in bits and coins. It would be foolish to exclude eg the Louvre, British Museum or Boston, which have some of the world's most important collections, even if Roman material still forms a minority of their collections. The "museums by type" categories normally take the very sensible approach of including wholly specialized museums plus more general museums with very important collections, like in this case those mentioned, and we should follow that here. No, Beeswaxcandle's house does not qualify.
Johnbod (
talk)
03:33, 21 March 2013 (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.
County Football Championships by year
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.
In addition, since no one has commented yet, there exist four categories on their own with the format Year County Senior Football Championships, e.g.
Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships. Now this seems overly specific altogether. Perhaps those categories should just be divided by year (the Sligo Intermediate Football Championship is in that category anyway). This would also rename these particular subcategories for consistency with the same parent category which is currently at
Category:GAA County Championships and would allow the inclusion of hurling and intermediate football.
There aren't so many County Championships per year that they need be divided much further (as they currently are)
About 32 X 3 (senior, intermediate, junior) X2 (football and hurling) still equals less than 200.
Procedural note. This set of categories was added by the nominator to the
discussion above, and I have split it out. The original nomination was about a technical renaming a set of similar categories, with no change of scope). However, the proposal for the second set of categories is to change their scope in 2 respects (from senior football championships to all levels of all GAA sports). Whatever the merits or otherwise of this second proposal, it is a separate issue ... and trying to discuss two separate issues in one nomination would cause confusion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This nomination widens the scope of these categories in two respects: a) by extending the level from senior-only to all levels; b) by changing from football-only to all GAA sports. The second change is very unwise, because each of these categories is currently in the appropriate subcat of
Category:Gaelic football seasons (e.g.
Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships is a sub-category of
Category:2008 in Gaelic football). That parenting would no longer be viable after the renaming, so each article would have to be added to the relevant subcat of
Category:Gaelic football seasons. That would increase category clutter on articles and increase the maintenance workload, for no apparent gain. If we want by-year categories which can accommodate county hurling championships, it would be better to create specific hurling categories. I am so far neutral on the merits of the first change (i.e. from senior level to all levels). AFFAICS, most of the Wikipedia articles on GAA club competitions relate to senior level; the intermediate and junior levels are less notable. So that widening of scope would not bring in many new articles, but it would reduce the focus on the topics which most interest our readers. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
As for the notability of junior and intermediate levels - it depends. Based on what it says in their Wikipedia entries, to give two examples,
Paul Galvin has won Kerry Junior Football Championships and
Michael Murphy has won a Donegal Intermediate Football Championship. If, to take a soccer parallel, every competition in the
English football league system has a Wikipedia entry (when the likes of
Sergio Agüero and
Wayne Rooney would likely never play in the
North West Counties Football League or the
Manchester Football League) why shouldn't the intermediate and junior championships in Gaelic football (which often feature the sport's major stars) be covered by Wikipedia if reliable sources can be unearthed? --
86.40.105.141 (
talk)
15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If the reliable sources are found, then of course there can be articles on junior and intermediate levels. My point was imply that it less likely that reliable sources will be found for competitions at the lower levels. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Alternative: The problem is that "football" is ambiguous, because it can be Gaelic, Australian Rules, American, or Soccer. Soccer is a "garrison sport", not played by GAA, but soccer is played in both parts of Ireland. I accordingly suggest:
Oppose this alternative proposal; as far as I am aware only the GAA organises county and provincial football championships throughout Ireland, all of which are named in the conventional format [name of county or province] [level of competition i.e. Minor, Under-21, Junior, Intermediate, Senior] Football Championship. I am not aware of a single case where an Australian Rules, American, soccer or other football championship is named in a way that could lead to confusion with the competitions that the GAA has run since the 1880s, but individual cases could be addressed by DAB pages. We have just had lengthy debates over the renaming of scores of articles about these GAA competitions away from the conventional format; we really don't need a similar set of changes to categories.
Brocach (
talk)
18:49, 10 February 2013 (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:Muslim saints
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:Delete. There are no saints in Islam - we have no article
Muslim saints (just as we have no
Jewish saints or
Scientology saints or
Pagan saints). Why? Islam - unlike certain Christian denominations - does not have a centralized authority to determine "sainthood" much less one that would be applicable to all branches of Islam. Why? Because its not a theological concept as no orthodox Muslim would ever, EVER, EVER, pray to some "saint" for his or her intervention on the beseecher's behalf - it's blasphemy.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete After reading the article that comes closest to maybe discussing what this covers
Wali I have to say that this does not work. The fact that I had to remove one of these people from a category that was explicitly for Christian Saints suggests the whole program is not in line with reality. Personally I think we maybe should wuetion having any saints categories, because being designated a saint boils down to a post-thumous award, and we discorage award categories. However there is no regular controlled system to designate Muslims as saints. Sufi leaders are respected by their followers, and their grave sites are respected, but I don't think that "saint" is the right or best term to capture this.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment If I read the article
Wali correctly, it is pretty clear that at least for Sunnis the Wali are not the profets, but a distinct group. Yet at least three of these people (Daniel, Ezekiel and Enoch) are recognized as Prophets by Islam (the fact that they were not Muslims at all, at least per most historic sources makes this tricky, or course we also have them in Christian Saints categories even thought they were not Christians per most historic sources either, so the whole matter is messy. Of course, the fact that the Anglican Saints category includes people involved in the counter-reformation, that is people who proactively fought Anglicanism, is the single fact that makes me think that we should rethink the whole Saints category). At some level I want to say "we do not have
Category:Sinners, we should not have
Category:Saints." I would argue that we should not have
Category:Christian Saints, but should only categorize saints by specific Churches that recognize them, and there is no body that can claim to be "The Christian Church". However what is clear to me is that we can not have a general Muslim Saints category. We maybe could have more specific categories.
Comment There are some at least regionally recognized groups of holy people respected after their death in Islam. We have an article
Wali Sanga which is on the men who are respected as the fathers of Islam in Indonesia. We also have
Category:Wali Sanga. It is not in this category, and I don't think it should be. If we are going to have a parent category for respected people from multiple religious traditions, I think we should give it a name other than Saint. Saint is histirically tied to Christianity. A better name would be
Category:People honored for their religiosity or something like that. However, I still think that at least in some cases it boils down to posthoumous awards. I am also not convinced that it is really always notable to the people so designated. I would actually argue that being named a Roman Catholic Saint for everyone born after 1 AD is probably notable, in part because they limit it to people who at least can be thught of to have been in some way part of what could be seen as Roman Catholic. The very fact that people designated as saints by Anglicans include people involved in the counter reformation would lead me to the view that it is not a notable trait for them, in fact in some cases it seems like a false categorization. I really think the saints categories should be listified. It is worth mentioning that someone is designated a saint by some group, but it is really not a defining trait for the biography of the person involved.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Category:Sufi saints, then purge of (1) prophets such as Enoch and Samuel - who are pre-Muslim and also honoured by Christians and Jews - though they might go into a Muslim prophets category; (2) any Muslim (but non-Sufi) saints. My understanding is that only the Sufi branch of Islam has saints. However, I am not a Muslim, and will willingly stand corrected.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
delete - doesn't seem defining or sourced. I note
Category:Prophets_of_Islam which may be a better home for some of these.
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.
Having "music" after the genre would be appropriate for a genre like "rock", given that "rock groups" could refer to types of
rock, but not this. Most of these genre categories I've seen just say "[Nationality] [genre] groups" and not "[Nationality] [genre] music groups". Lachlan Foley22:28, 13 March 2013 (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:Communist regime
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 - the category contained articles not just on states, but on non-state entities as well (i.e.
Khmer Rouge). However the
Category:Communist states category is the one that should be used here, as "Communist regime" does not fit in either tree its editor placed it in, and I'm not sure where it would. Note that the category was depopulted out of process by another editor (not one of the above), I am reverting that. -
The BushrangerOne ping only00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Both the category and the nomination are rubbish, and I am not sure whether of two is more rubbish. The only purpose which could justify existence of the category is to list institutions and phenomena typical for communist states, which is incompatible with stuffing it with examples of states, just like
United States should not belong to
category: Capitalism. One should not “propose merging to communist states”. One should cleanse all inappropriate items instead, and look on what will remain of the category. The Bushranger, stop doing the wrong thing such as
[1], please.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk)
15:54, 14 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Scotch-Irish descent
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.
Oppose - "Scottish-Irish" is a single ethnicity, for Protestants from Northern Ireland who emigrated to US. The fact that these ethnic categories seem to be recognised in US seems to me a reason for retaining the category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:47, 19 March 2013 (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:Fictional American people of Portuguese descent
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:Fictional American people of Danish descent
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:People with missing ears
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: I don't believe this is
WP:DEFINING to most individuals in the category, with the obvious
exception. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Most of the articles don't mention this in the lead. Why restrict this just to missing ears? What about missing limbs, etc? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Missing", as in the owner does not know where it is? Or "missing", meaning less than two, whether by defect of birth, accident, wound, self-infliction, etc? Way too broad and not defining in most cases.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, being an amputee is a defining characteristic, as it can have a profound impact on how a person performs even the most basic functions of daily living — having to walk on your hands because you don't have any legs, having to use your feet to feed yourself because you don't have hands, etc. — whereas the consequences of missing an ear are predominantly cosmetic. These people don't normally lack the inner ear structures that actually do the ear's job; they lack the outer flap of cartilage and skin that define the ear's outward physical appearance. They still have an ear canal and an eardrum and a cochlea in most cases, and those generally still work — it just doesn't look like a normal ear from the outside. (And even when they do lack the inner structures, that's almost always part of a larger and more defining syndrome of physical defects rather than a defining characteristic in and of itself.) By the same token, while we do indeed categorize people as amputees when they're missing one or more arms or legs, we do not categorize people by minor (i.e. finger or toe) amputations whose impact is more modest and cosmetic in nature rather than being truly disabling. So there might certainly be some cases where the missing ear points toward a more legitimately defining and categorizable physical condition, but the simple fact of missing an ear is not defining by itself. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:32, 18 March 2013 (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 women writers by city
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:Delete the parent category and merge subcategories to all appropriate targets. This triple intersection of gender, occupation and city of origin is not helpful and only isolates women in a subcategory. We don't split
Category:People from Chicago, Illinois by gender so we certainly shouldn't split
Category:Writers from Chicago, Illinois. In fact, we don't even split
Category:People from Illinois according to gender. If there is something distinct in the literary production of women's writers from Chicago (which I doubt), then a list would be a better solution.
Pichpich (
talk)
15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, I don't really see the point of splitting the by-US-state writer categories according to gender. But first things first.
Pichpich (
talk)
18:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose we do not split people cats by gender, but we do split writer cats by gender. I see no reason why we should not do it at the city level. We have already agreed to in some cases split sportspeople by gender at the city level, I see no reason why we should not do the same for writers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
"Occupation by city" intersections are, in the vast majority of cases, a deeply undesirable bag of crap that should actually be getting cut back rather than expanded further. Excepting some mayors and city councillors, frankly, we almost never actually need occupations to be subdivided any more narrowly than the state level.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. This is just a triple intersection
WP:OCAT which is ghettoizing women writers for no really compelling reason, not really a very helpful division at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- Women novelists tend to write a different calss of fiction from male novelists. Gender is thus a valid distinction here. It is probably less singificant in non-fiction, particularly academic writing.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose, writers are split at the top level into women, as women are recognized as having a different approach to the discipline, per peterk. The cities listed are the major metro areas with significant author populations, and a local literary/academic culture. As long as the categories for the cities are jam packed with names, a way to break them up, esp. with only 1 sub cat, makes sense. ps i moved "women writers from sfbay area" out of "women writers by city" as its not a city, but a region.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
04:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)reply
As Bearcat noted, this is not splitting a category jam packed with names, it's ghettoizing women in a subcategory. And we've never split these city-specific categories according to ethnicity or century (to name just a couple of options) which would probably be more meaningful than the gender split. Why? Because these categories don't need splitting. The Chicago and SF categories have less than 300 writers, Boston, LA and Seattle less that 100, Portland about a 100. That is clearly not jam packed. Even the NYC category has a very manageable 600 entries. I also want to stress that I agree with two of your statements. Men and women do have somewhat distinct approaches to writing and separate top-level categories for men and women writers makes sense. It's also true that some cities can have somewhat distinct literary scenes and this can justify (in some instances) a city-specific category. But existing categories don't need to be intersected systematically.
Pichpich (
talk)
21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I should add that since most of YOUR argument is valid (or at least completely rational) as well, i dont see upmerging as a huge loss, or completely contraindicated by other categorization policies. so i would change mine to Weak Oppose.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:54, 30 March 2013 (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:Firefly (TV series) fan films
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.
Weak oppose - given the
cult status of Firefly, this seems like a category that has a more than reasonable chance of expansion. Whether that means "keep" or "delete now, recreate later", I'm not 100% sure though, but would lean to
WP:RETAIN if pressed. -
The BushrangerOne ping only15:18, 20 March 2013 (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.
Fan films
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:Songs produced by Linda McCartney
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:Delete. This category contains all the songs from
one album, and each member of this category is a redirect. The album is also a member of
Category:Albums produced by Linda McCartney which doubly makes this category redundant. Plus, a category full of redirects to the same page is an impediment to navigation; it wastes readers' time..
Richhoncho (
talk)
13:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator. There really should be a speedy criterion for the deletion of categories which consist only of redirects to the same page. A category like that is always a waste of the reader's time. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete if we ever get more than a half dozen of her produced songs to have articles, MAYBE we could recreate. for now, essentially an empty category.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:57, 30 March 2013 (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:2020s in Ghana
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:History of China in operas
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:Delete. This category and its subcategories which I am also nominating below seem to be a clear case of
over categorization. The parent category,
Category:Operas set in China, had only 14 articles in it, and is likely to grow very, very slowly, if at all. This new category and its multiple subcats, contain in total 4 articles and add several extra obstacles to the reader simply looking for operas set in China. Note also that the parent category of Category:Operas set in China is
Category:Operas by country of setting and these subcats introduce an intersection of setting + specific historical period. If nothing else this category does not belong as a subcat of
Category:Operas set in China.
Voceditenore (
talk)
09:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If all the articles going to upmerge, then at least to relevant period of history in fiction, to help the identification of articles and navigations.--
NeoBatfreak (
talk)
04:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Overcategorisation. No need when
Category:Operas set in China takes care of the handful of works concerned. Making "History of Mongolia in operas" a subcategory of "History of China in operas" is also likely to set the cat among the pigeons. --
Folantin (
talk)
10:41, 14 March 2013 (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:People from Kensington and Chelsea (London borough)
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 category was recently renamed from (district) disambiguation to (London borough) dabbing, along with the other People-from-London-borough categories. However, while cleaning up after the move, I came across
this discussion from a few years back, in which it was mooted that if it passed (it did), the dab could be removed from this category. And there are no other "Kensington and Chelsea"s for people to be from. So, is it more important that this retain the (London borough) disambiguator like all other subcats of
Category:People from London by borough, or should it have the unneeded disambiguator removed like the other subcategories of
Category:Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea?
The BushrangerOne ping only08:43, 13 March 2013 (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:Organizations in cryptography
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:French rugby union championship
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.
Reply Ambiguity in category titles has much more damaging consequences, because it leads to articles being miscategorised and the software makes it very hard to monitor such miscategorisations. That's why we often disambiguate category names even in cases where the head article is not disambiguated (e.g. the
Birmingham is the head article for
Category:Birmingham, West Midlands. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is recentism. The competition under various guises has lasted far longer than the Top 14. Keep as is, or create an umbrella category and split into two subdivisions.
FruitMonkey (
talk)
00:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose it used to be quite different to a single division before the establishment of the Top 14, and I think the renaming will be quite confusing. Neither name is perfect, but at least the current one is descriptive. -
Shuddetalk12:19, 9 April 2013 (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:Television series by Buena Vista Television
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: Disney no longer uses the "Buena Vista" brand name for its television unit, instead the Disney or ABC brands (or both) are used. It's been like this for half a decade.
Freshh (
talk)
17:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Split, I think. I have long had a concern about deleting brands when there is a name change. The article appears to have a list of many of the items that should be included in
Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television. Even though the name changed, I believe that most of these will display the old studio name when they are viewed. So while the studio name no longer exists, the work it produced does still exist retaining the name.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Commnet -- For alumni categories, the alumni of a renamed or merged college are treated as having attended the successor. Why not for TV? If the categories are large, we might nevertheless use the old name for a category of historic articles from the period when the brand was in use.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
But alumni of a school that is renamed may in fact not use the new name. Many/most/all of them still use the old school name. So as I said above, I have long had a concern about deleting brands which is what happens when we do this. Doing this for schools and other places does not make it right here or for that matter there.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If you tried to split out the alumni of
Wayne University from those who graduated from the later
Wayne State University you would create a bigger mess than you would fix. Then there is
Truman State University and some other universities in both Missouri and Alabama that have gone through so many name changes no one other than alumni would realize the various names all apply to the same place.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Truman State University is on its 7th name. At some points it has changed names multiple times within the time a student would take to graduate. It really makes no sense to sub-divide the alumni categories for each name change.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:43, 21 March 2013 (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:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks
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: The current title is a bit odd, grammatically, since it leaves open the possibility of administrators who are willing to consider placing self-requested blocks but unwilling to actually place them. The proposed title is shorter, clearer, and more closely matches the convention within
Category:Wikipedia administrators by inclination. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Willing to consider renaming. I'm not sure on this one. As noted at
WP:SELFBLOCK, such requests are typically refused. The admins in this category are likely to be those who will look at each case on its merits, and it seems to me that the renaming implies that they are "admins who will act on any self-block request". I'd like to see some feedback from some of the 17 admins who have placed themselves in this category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:46, 24 February 2013 (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:Military equipment of the Chaco 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.
Nominator's rationale: As determined in several recent CfDs, "military equipment by conflict" is not a sufficiently defining concept to require categorisation, particularly in the case of a minor conflict such as this. Furthermore, two of the four articles in this category are not even about military equipment of the war, but operations in the war, already properly categorised in
Category:Chaco War; the other two are ships, and are properly categorised elsewhere as well.
The BushrangerOne ping only05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Chaco War at least in theory, in practice I think everything may still be in that category. The contents are two articles about aspects of the Chaco War, an article on a class of gun boats largely built for Paraguay to use in the war, and an article on a specific ship involved in the war, so it seems that they all belong with the war, but only two are on military equitment, and it is not worth having a category with two articles.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:49, 14 March 2013 (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:Early American naval commanders
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:Delete I don't think it's wise to split US Navy officers by period and unless I missed something, there's no "by period" categorization of officers of any country. In this case, there's another important problem: "early" is not a well-defined era of American history so it's impossible to determine the exact criteria for inclusion in the category.
Pichpich (
talk)
15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, you are correct. 'Early' is not defined. Can we split and rename the category? How about 18th Century American naval commanders and 19th Century American naval commanders and 20th Century American naval commanders? It would seem lumping all American naval commanders under one umbrella isn't the best way to go either. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment on the by-century proposal. I don't think this is really much better because centuries are also arbitrary cutoffs. If we really want to classify officers by time period, it would make more sense to classify by armed conflict. (But honestly I don't see much value in that either.)
Pichpich (
talk)
20:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply to comments: 'Officers' are not always 'commanders' of ships. And using 'armed conflict' to define a Cat' doesn't quite get it because many commanders were involved in several wars. e.g.
Stephen Decatur fought in the
Quasi War with France, the
War of 1812 and the
First and
Second Barbary Wars, all of which occurred in the 19th century, as did
John Rodgers and others. Defining the Cat' by century seems the best way to go as this would encompass several wars/conflicts at the same time. There might be cases where a commander fought in wars that took place in different centuries but this is (very) rare. Can't even think of one off hand. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
00:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Certainly in the RN it was common in the Napoleonic era, and for Japan/Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Maybe this is less true of the USN but equally it might be best to think of a format that can be replicated by other navies if required.
Le Deluge (
talk)
14:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Insert: Opps.. You're correct. Decatur in this case would fit into two such categories. 18th Century and 19th Century American naval officers. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
03:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment "Officers" is a more useful, general term - "commander" is a bit fuzzier and I doubt an "officers" category would become too overcrowded. Go with the more general term to start with. If you're going with "xth century", then perhaps "commissioned in xth century" or "born in xth century" might be more precise.
Le Deluge (
talk)
14:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree with Le deluge. Let's make the category as broad as possible and then see just how big it gets. We can subdivide from there if it's too large.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
15:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)reply
But
Category:American film actors has over 10,000 articles and we have not seen fit to divide it by time period, so size alone is not persuasive. We might also argue that wars would be a better way to divide. However I think especially in the early 19th-century enough of these people were involved in multiple conflicts that wars would be a split too far, but century is a good way to devide them.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Numerous entries, size, is one of the most persuasive reasons for creating sub categories. The reason we have cat's is to sort large numbers of entries -- and on that note I would highly recommend finding sub cat's for 'American film actors'. Sub dividing by 'War' in the case of 'American navel captains' could get tacky because as I mentioned above, many officers have fought in two or more wars.
Stephen Decatur and
John Rodgers for example fought in four different wars -- all in the 19th century. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment. While we have the sub Cat's mentioned by Benea, we still don't have any specific to e.g.the War of 1812 (one for People, not naval officers) , the American Civil War, the Barbary Wars, etc, so my thinking was that since all of these wars occurred during the 19th century, and since many officers fought in several, as discussed above, we also need a Cat' specific to this general era. Or should we make cat's specific to all the individual wars -- which would result in just as many if not more Cat's. If anything we should simply rename the Cat proposed for deletion to Category:Early American naval officers (1775 - 1815) This would cover Naval Officers of the Revolution, Quasi-War, both Barbary wars and the War of 1812. Again, there is always an area of overlap among Cat's and many officers accordingly fit into two or more. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Reply : I don't think we don't need to create a Cat for each Barbary War, while making cat's for all the individual (often lesser) wars will become redundant, some officers fitting into several wars. Overlap is to be expected, but I think only to a point. As I mentioned several officers, that I know of, I'm sure there's more, would fit into four or more Cat's if they were defined by individual wars. While trying to replicate a Cat' structure of another country may sound 'consistent' on the surface it appears not to be the practical way to go for the American navy. It would be nice to have one Cat' for naval officers (there are many) who served in this one defining and unique era of America history. (1775-1815) That would spare us a lot of additional Cat's. If you still would like to create the Cat's you mentioned above they could be sub Cat's to this more encompassing Cat' of 1778-1815. In any case this is really getting to be a discretionary call. For now I still think we should go the simpler route and simply rename the Cat up for deletion. A cat for naval officers of this general period (Early American) would serve well. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
16:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
What's the problem with having four or more cats on an article? Why not have a category for each Barbary War? Why is it not practical, and finally, what is this defining and apparently unique period of history, that lumps together five wars, with different opponents, over a thirty year period, with intervening periods of peace? This is all getting very subjective. We've tried to define it as 'early', by century, and finally by this arbitrary period by dates. Categories by conflict do not overlap, they are discrete periods of conflict, therefore there will be no redundancy for lesser wars because some personnel fit into several categories. The present suggested system would collect officers who served only in the Revolutionary War with those who served only in the Second Barbary War 35 years later, only for the sake of those officers whose career spanned the entire 35 year period. Organising it along the lines of the British one allows those persons who served in one conflict to be categorised immediately with those who fought beside them in the same conflict, rather than in a vague 35 year block based on someone's definition of defining and unique.
Benea (
talk)
17:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, your arguments are apparently sound. Okay, we need to make a few added cat's for wars, and if a given officer fits into two or more of them (Decatur and Rodgers would fit into at least four) then, on retrospect, this is all well and good. Thanks for your thoughts. A couple of last questions: Should we be making separate Cat's for a given war for Admirals and Officers -- and will we be separating Army officers from Naval officers? I hope so. If we lump too many military types, ranks along with 'personnel' into one Cat it seems it will defeat the purpose of categorization i.e.the effort of sorting and organizing large groups of names. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay Benea, but as you pointed out on 22 Feb, we already have
Category:United States Navy officers and
Category:United States Navy admirals. How do we integrate War-Cat's with them? We can't place an individual War-Cat under Admirals and Officers -- and we can't place Admirals and Officers under each War-Cat, so it seems War-Cat's and Cat's for Admirals and Officers must be stand alone cats and independent of each other in terms of sub Cat's. Looking at Cat's for both Admirals and Officers there seems to be other items we should be mindful of. For example 'Continental Navy officers' (Revolutionary period, war specific) is under the Cat' for Naval officers, but there is no corresponding Cat' for 'Continental Navy Admirals', for openers. IMO, it seems a condensation of and reordering of Cat's is needed. We have cats for 'personnel', 'Officers, Admirals and Commodores' with war-specific cats mixed into the works.Correction : There were no Admirals until
David Farragut (of the Civil War) came along. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)reply
A bit later I will begin removing the names from the
Category:Early American naval commanders if there are no objections or other suggestions. After navigating through the maze of categories it seems there are enough of them, perhaps too many, that seem to cover any individual that may have otherwise fit into the 'Early American' category. Perhaps I was too quick to create that category. My apologies for any inconvenience or trouble I may have caused. --
Gwillhickers (
talk)
17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename -- Deletion should not be an option anyway: if anything we should merge. Any potential merge target will already be a colossally large category, which we probably ought to split. I do not think that a split by war would be appropriate, as it would lead to multiple similar categoriusations in some cases. I would suggest
Category:American ante-bellum naval commanders for all periods proceding the Civil War.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Subdivide by century at least with 18th and 19th century cats. I do not think war would be useful in all cases since so many officers were involved in multiple samll wars.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:10, 24 March 2013 (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:Military operations post-1945
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 category is unnecessary. It contains two types of sub-categories - by-date categories and by-country(/organisation) categories (for 3 post-1945 organisations). The by-date categories should be upmerged to
Category:Military operations by period. The country/organisation categories can be removed from this category - they're still categorized in the more relevant
Category:Military operations by country. This is a step towards fixing the partial overlap between
"post-1945" categories and
"20th-century" categories (an operation in 1977 would be eligable for both these cats, but neither of these cats can be a subcat of the other). Note: This is an alternative to
merging the "post-1945 period" category - if that category is merged then this category should be kept.
DexDor (
talk)
06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
do nothing The nomination makes no sense. It is to upmerge a specific period category into a container category of periods. The articles are not periods, they certainly cannot be directly placed in this container category which is only for period subcats.
Hmains (
talk)
18:37, 17 February 2013 (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:Military operations of the post-1945 period
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 or merge. This category is a subcategory of
Category:Military operations post-1945. It is defined as being for military operations from the end of the Second World War to the year 2000. So in other words, it's acting as "20th-century military operations post-1945". The current name is not clear at all. I'm not sure if we should simply upmerge this to
Category:Military operations post-1945 or if we should try to come up with a name that works. There is no broader scheme for military topics in the 20th century that are post-1945.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Keep/Rename (category creator) I've no objection to a rename to "Category:Military operations 1945-2000" (or similar) or to "Category:20th century military operations after World War II" (which IMO isn't really a triple intersection), but I think it's
the (original) "post-1945" category that should be upmerged/deleted rather than this one (I was/am
planning to take that to CfD myself) - see
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_8#Category:Military_operations_post-1945. The background to this is that we currently have both "post-1945" categories and "20th-century" categories which (for the period 1946-2000) overlap, but neither of these categories can be a subcat of the other - thus an operation in 1977 could/should be categorized in both although article editors may be unaware of this. The advantage of the "post-1945 period" category (I agree it's not an ideal name) is that it's defined to fit within the "20th-century" category. If the community accepts this rearrangement of the "military operations" categories then the other "post-1945" categories could be replaced in a similar way. Consideration could then be given to renaming these categories (which have an intro referring to 1946-2000) "back" to just "post-1945". Many of the articles in these categories are in "Cold War" categories which reduces the amount of recategorization needed.
DexDor (
talk) 06:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
DexDor (
talk)
06:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)reply
There's several problems with that idea (which I had considered myself) - "M.o. of the Cold War period" includes the word period which I think is what the nom is trying to avoid (and would be a slightly strange way to categorize articles about any ops by countries not involved in the Cold War), "M.o. of the Cold War" would be OK as a category but doesn't solve this problem because it can't contain any ops that weren't part of the Cold War, and (most significantly) "M.o. of the post-Cold War period" has exactly the same problem as "M.o. post-1945" (it doesn't fit within the 20th-century category) - in fact it's even worse as editors/readers are more likely to consider 2001 etc part of the post-Cold War period than part of the post-1945 period.
DexDor (
talk)
06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Military operations since World War II. A while back we did a major cull on 20th/21st century categories as an attempt to have a past/current distinction. In the field of war, the end of WWII is clearly major punctuation point, marking a change of era. We need to resist the urge to split things further until it is clear that the category is too full for comfort.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Support
Category:Military operations 1945–2000, and upmerge some subcategories of
Category:Cold War to subcategories of this category. A subcategory covering most (1947-91 or 1946-90?) of the 1945–2000 period is unnecessary, and it is unclear whether the “Cold War” category covers all events within the period or those related to the USA/USSR/NATO only.
Hugo999 (
talk)
13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Military operations from 1945-2000. With the events of Sep. 11, 2001 and the start of the "War on Terror" at that point, ending one category in 2000 and starting the next in 2001 makes sense. Anyway we allow 20th-century and 21st-century categories when they are part of a longer series. We only disallow them when by their nature they will not have anything predating 1900 and so will only be two categories. That is not an issue here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
We discorage a 20th/21st century split when those are the only two categories. We have lots of places where we split between the two as part of a much larger sequence. It would make sense to do so here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:45, 21 March 2013 (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:Indian actors by language
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale not all of the contents of these categories are actually Indian actors. Most are actually categories for actors grouping them by the languages of the films they acted in. I really think we would be best off reworking these into just categories that connected acting with the language of films. A seperate set for acting by language in theatre might work. I am somewhat heistant to rename these categories, because I do not want to expand them to include a wrold-wide structure. However there are several non-Indians in these categories, so it would seem best to stop treating them as child categories of
Category:Indian actors. To fit in that category a person needs to be a national of India. However to fit in these categories people only have to have acted in certain languages.
Category:Tamil film actors and
Category:Bengali film actors may not even be limited to films made in India, and many Hindi film actors are clearly Pakistanis who were acting in India-made films and clearly not Indian nationals. There are also other people who show up who are British, Brazilian, American, Australian and maybe other nationals as well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I am not clear whether the categories are actually native language ones or Indian state ones, but we should have them a Tamil speaker will probably not perform well in a Hindi/Urdu language film. Since the languages are ones spoken only in India, upmerging (per nom) acheives little: yes I know that there are langauges shared with neighbours within the subcontinent - Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually lots and lots and lots of people have been in Tamil and Hindi films. The overlaps between these various categories is very high. Beyond that, the Hindi category could not possibly be a state category, since it is not limited to one state. The various films categories are clearly being used as categories to group together people who appeared in those films. These, as I mentioned above, contain lots of actors who are not Indian nationals. This is especially true of
Category:Hindi film actors which has both a large number of Pakistani nationals, and is also probably the one with the most people who are from other countries as well, including one article on a British man who spent 6 months leatrning Hindi so he could act in a Hindi film. The claim these languages are spoken only in India is false. Most obviously Bengali is spoken outside India. Hindi is also spoken in Fiji and many other places outside the subcontinent. Also, Peter Kingiron has entirely ignored the fact that the current name is saying the people are Indian, when as I have shown many of the people involved in the film actors cats are not Indian at all, but are foriegn nationals who came to India only to perform in films there.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment if you want a sense of why this is clearly not a by state category look at the article on
Rati Agnihotri. She is in five film-language categories, none related to where she was born, and is also in another people category that seems to refelct where in India her ancestors came from, and does not overlap with any of her film film-language cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Another example of the complexities of these categories can be seen by looking at the article on
Kirron Kher. Currently she is only in a Hindi realted category. The vast majority of the films she was in were Hindi, but she was also in English, Bengali and Punjabi language films and a few more. I half wonder if with such heavy cross-over between languages these categories are heading towards being performer by performance overcategorization.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:22, 12 February 2013 (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:Museums of Ancient Rome
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. There were objections to the name but I have not managed to extract an improved version from this discussion;
Category:Egyptological collections works, but there's no corresponding name for these cases; and the existing names correspond to parent categories (e.g.
Category:Ancient Greece). I will add category explanations requiring that the museums be centred on the era or possess significant collections from it. If anyone is then willing to check and prune the contents, that would be welcome. –
FayenaticLondon17:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Inclusion criteria is simply too subjective. What percentage of a museum's collection needs to fall into this area to merit categorization? If you look at the categories for the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not close to 50%!
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete—At first glance I thought that this would be a category of Museums that the Ancient Romans had developed (possibly alongside the Circus). However, I'm disappointed to find that it's modern museums about Ancient Rome. So, rename would be the conclusion. But then I looked more closely at the inclusion criteria only to find that our private collection (which happens to have a few Roman coins) would qualify me to add our house to the category. This being the case, this is not a good way to categorise museums.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Re-name or delete There were museums in ancient Rome? Who'd have guessed? Unless it's meant to say "Museums concerned with Ancient Rome", which is entirely different.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename - I created both categories to help people looking for museums featuring collections related to Ancient Greece and Rome. The criteria can certainly be tightened and the categories better named to reflect the collections. There are many other categories that are broad enough for flexibility. Wikipedia should not be too rigid but should be used as a helpful guide. If you delete the categories, it will be harder to find museums relating to Ancient Greece and Rome.
Jllm06 (
talk)
12:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Featuring is subjective and not a good criteria for determining membership in a category. These categories came up when I happened on the MET article and there are about 11 different collection related categories. If we take your use of 'collections' or even 'featured collections', this is really subject material for a list rather then a category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment if we limited these categories to museums that had this as their main attraction if would make sense, but we don't, so I think we should just scap these categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Yea, that is a concern. Following the MET example, I don't believe that anyone would not classify this in
Category:Art museums in New York City. But should it also be in
Category:Asian art museums in New York? I would say yes if there was a dedicated building for that purpose. And being in
Category:Fashion museums in the United States could probably be challenged. The big problem is how do you devise an objective set of inclusion criteria for these? I think the two in this nomination are not really affected by these issues. However the others discussed here raise some interesting questions that I don't have answers for. I suspect that we will not and should not try to answer those questions here. I do think we need a separate discussion to see if in fact we need to do something and if so what.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This category (and some of these cited as parallels) are mixing up museums with Anceitn Roman material as part of their collections (a performance by performer type category) with museums solely (or mainly) about anciemt Rome. The latter with typically be excavated sites with a museum attached. The
British Museum is in a subcategory, but its collections include ethnographic material from lost part of the world. On the other hand, Pompeii and Herculaneum will be solely about Ancient Rome (or rather the Roman Empire, or Roman period).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Strong Keep, but probably rename I don't really see the problems, except that large numbers of European provincial museums will eventually be here, as the vast amount of stuff the Romans left under the ground forms a great part of their collections, often the majority by object count, even if most of it is pottery in bits and coins. It would be foolish to exclude eg the Louvre, British Museum or Boston, which have some of the world's most important collections, even if Roman material still forms a minority of their collections. The "museums by type" categories normally take the very sensible approach of including wholly specialized museums plus more general museums with very important collections, like in this case those mentioned, and we should follow that here. No, Beeswaxcandle's house does not qualify.
Johnbod (
talk)
03:33, 21 March 2013 (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.
County Football Championships by year
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.
In addition, since no one has commented yet, there exist four categories on their own with the format Year County Senior Football Championships, e.g.
Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships. Now this seems overly specific altogether. Perhaps those categories should just be divided by year (the Sligo Intermediate Football Championship is in that category anyway). This would also rename these particular subcategories for consistency with the same parent category which is currently at
Category:GAA County Championships and would allow the inclusion of hurling and intermediate football.
There aren't so many County Championships per year that they need be divided much further (as they currently are)
About 32 X 3 (senior, intermediate, junior) X2 (football and hurling) still equals less than 200.
Procedural note. This set of categories was added by the nominator to the
discussion above, and I have split it out. The original nomination was about a technical renaming a set of similar categories, with no change of scope). However, the proposal for the second set of categories is to change their scope in 2 respects (from senior football championships to all levels of all GAA sports). Whatever the merits or otherwise of this second proposal, it is a separate issue ... and trying to discuss two separate issues in one nomination would cause confusion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This nomination widens the scope of these categories in two respects: a) by extending the level from senior-only to all levels; b) by changing from football-only to all GAA sports. The second change is very unwise, because each of these categories is currently in the appropriate subcat of
Category:Gaelic football seasons (e.g.
Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships is a sub-category of
Category:2008 in Gaelic football). That parenting would no longer be viable after the renaming, so each article would have to be added to the relevant subcat of
Category:Gaelic football seasons. That would increase category clutter on articles and increase the maintenance workload, for no apparent gain. If we want by-year categories which can accommodate county hurling championships, it would be better to create specific hurling categories. I am so far neutral on the merits of the first change (i.e. from senior level to all levels). AFFAICS, most of the Wikipedia articles on GAA club competitions relate to senior level; the intermediate and junior levels are less notable. So that widening of scope would not bring in many new articles, but it would reduce the focus on the topics which most interest our readers. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
As for the notability of junior and intermediate levels - it depends. Based on what it says in their Wikipedia entries, to give two examples,
Paul Galvin has won Kerry Junior Football Championships and
Michael Murphy has won a Donegal Intermediate Football Championship. If, to take a soccer parallel, every competition in the
English football league system has a Wikipedia entry (when the likes of
Sergio Agüero and
Wayne Rooney would likely never play in the
North West Counties Football League or the
Manchester Football League) why shouldn't the intermediate and junior championships in Gaelic football (which often feature the sport's major stars) be covered by Wikipedia if reliable sources can be unearthed? --
86.40.105.141 (
talk)
15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)reply
If the reliable sources are found, then of course there can be articles on junior and intermediate levels. My point was imply that it less likely that reliable sources will be found for competitions at the lower levels. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)reply
Alternative: The problem is that "football" is ambiguous, because it can be Gaelic, Australian Rules, American, or Soccer. Soccer is a "garrison sport", not played by GAA, but soccer is played in both parts of Ireland. I accordingly suggest:
Oppose this alternative proposal; as far as I am aware only the GAA organises county and provincial football championships throughout Ireland, all of which are named in the conventional format [name of county or province] [level of competition i.e. Minor, Under-21, Junior, Intermediate, Senior] Football Championship. I am not aware of a single case where an Australian Rules, American, soccer or other football championship is named in a way that could lead to confusion with the competitions that the GAA has run since the 1880s, but individual cases could be addressed by DAB pages. We have just had lengthy debates over the renaming of scores of articles about these GAA competitions away from the conventional format; we really don't need a similar set of changes to categories.
Brocach (
talk)
18:49, 10 February 2013 (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:Muslim saints
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:Delete. There are no saints in Islam - we have no article
Muslim saints (just as we have no
Jewish saints or
Scientology saints or
Pagan saints). Why? Islam - unlike certain Christian denominations - does not have a centralized authority to determine "sainthood" much less one that would be applicable to all branches of Islam. Why? Because its not a theological concept as no orthodox Muslim would ever, EVER, EVER, pray to some "saint" for his or her intervention on the beseecher's behalf - it's blasphemy.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete After reading the article that comes closest to maybe discussing what this covers
Wali I have to say that this does not work. The fact that I had to remove one of these people from a category that was explicitly for Christian Saints suggests the whole program is not in line with reality. Personally I think we maybe should wuetion having any saints categories, because being designated a saint boils down to a post-thumous award, and we discorage award categories. However there is no regular controlled system to designate Muslims as saints. Sufi leaders are respected by their followers, and their grave sites are respected, but I don't think that "saint" is the right or best term to capture this.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment If I read the article
Wali correctly, it is pretty clear that at least for Sunnis the Wali are not the profets, but a distinct group. Yet at least three of these people (Daniel, Ezekiel and Enoch) are recognized as Prophets by Islam (the fact that they were not Muslims at all, at least per most historic sources makes this tricky, or course we also have them in Christian Saints categories even thought they were not Christians per most historic sources either, so the whole matter is messy. Of course, the fact that the Anglican Saints category includes people involved in the counter-reformation, that is people who proactively fought Anglicanism, is the single fact that makes me think that we should rethink the whole Saints category). At some level I want to say "we do not have
Category:Sinners, we should not have
Category:Saints." I would argue that we should not have
Category:Christian Saints, but should only categorize saints by specific Churches that recognize them, and there is no body that can claim to be "The Christian Church". However what is clear to me is that we can not have a general Muslim Saints category. We maybe could have more specific categories.
Comment There are some at least regionally recognized groups of holy people respected after their death in Islam. We have an article
Wali Sanga which is on the men who are respected as the fathers of Islam in Indonesia. We also have
Category:Wali Sanga. It is not in this category, and I don't think it should be. If we are going to have a parent category for respected people from multiple religious traditions, I think we should give it a name other than Saint. Saint is histirically tied to Christianity. A better name would be
Category:People honored for their religiosity or something like that. However, I still think that at least in some cases it boils down to posthoumous awards. I am also not convinced that it is really always notable to the people so designated. I would actually argue that being named a Roman Catholic Saint for everyone born after 1 AD is probably notable, in part because they limit it to people who at least can be thught of to have been in some way part of what could be seen as Roman Catholic. The very fact that people designated as saints by Anglicans include people involved in the counter reformation would lead me to the view that it is not a notable trait for them, in fact in some cases it seems like a false categorization. I really think the saints categories should be listified. It is worth mentioning that someone is designated a saint by some group, but it is really not a defining trait for the biography of the person involved.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge with
Category:Sufi saints, then purge of (1) prophets such as Enoch and Samuel - who are pre-Muslim and also honoured by Christians and Jews - though they might go into a Muslim prophets category; (2) any Muslim (but non-Sufi) saints. My understanding is that only the Sufi branch of Islam has saints. However, I am not a Muslim, and will willingly stand corrected.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)reply
delete - doesn't seem defining or sourced. I note
Category:Prophets_of_Islam which may be a better home for some of these.
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.