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.
Need to re-name the category into " USSR dog breeds", or " Soviet dog breeds". The reason for need is that some dog breeds originated in Russia, while some in USSR, and they differ. However due to the fact that Russia inherited Soviet "brands" , including authorship for most Soviet inventions, a lot of dog breeds are referred to as "Russian" while in reality they could origin in different countries — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Afru (
talk •
contribs)
21:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films set on beaches
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 as non-defining. I've seen a great many films on this list that simply have a single scene on a beach, some more memorable than others. I don't see how we could retain this and not then have films set in meadows, films set in fields, films set on sidewalks, etc. If kept, the category would need to be seriously pruned so that only films like
The Beach (film), predominantly set on a beach, are permitted.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
At this point, I'd have no objection to withdrawing this, unless someone feels strongly it should go ahead. I think the category needs to be pruned of a lot of films that are not defined by beach settings, but I personally have no interested in doing so.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree, can we come to some sort of agreement then? Cheers. The problem for me is that although films like From Here to Eternity and Get Carter aren't mostly set on a beach or anything like it they're really quite notable for beach scenes. Obviously it is silly to categorize every film with a beach scene as such but I think we need a way to document the notable ones without implying that the films are set on a beach. A solution could be to keep the category to those which are half or fully set on a beach and to create a list of films which have notable beach scenes in them which are covered in multiple sources. ♦
Dr. Blofeld07:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, but I agree with the o.p. that it needs to be ensured that this genuinely is restricted to "films which are set on beaches or have sizable or memorable sections of films on a beach". Only "weak", because I do question whether this is ever going to be useful to anyone.
Mogism (
talk)
20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, On the Beach, despite its name, shouldn't be included imo. Neither should the Bond films, nor Some Like It Hot. I think much pruning needs to be done, but that's not a reason to delete, in itself.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep but I agree it needs to be better defined or instead replaced with a source list with a summary. It's not supposed to be for every film which ever had one beach scene in it. But those films which are predominantly set on a beach or have scenes on a beach in it which the film is famous for. It's a category I was looking for.♦
Dr. Blofeld20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Simply having scenes (even important scenes) set on a beach isn't a defining characteristic. The films in this category have nothing substantive in common. -
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
02:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Wait, now even as nominator, I have to point out that a film that is set primarily on a beach is a bona fide setting. And we do have some of those. So I'm going to have to change my own !vote to keep and prune if necessary.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The mere fact that it may be logically possible to determine membership in the category (or not) doesn't address the issue of whether it is a meaningful or helpful category. -
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Shawn in Montreal: I think we can agree on narrowing it down to those films which are primarily set on beaches strictly and we can state this in the category talk page. We can leave a note saying only films primarily set on beaches can be included. Ones like The Seventh Seal and The Beach. The thing is what about ones like Saving Private Ryan and Ryan's Daughter which have significant footage on a beach. Would they be included? I think we need some leeway. we just need to draw line somewhere! Can you withdraw this? Otherwise it'll probably be deleted entirely and I think it has some use.♦
Dr. Blofeld17:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)reply
You're probably well up on a lot of the films so feel free to remove the ones from the category you're not happy with. I'm not sure about Saving Private Ryan but I think Ryan's Daughter has enough beach footage to qualify, no objection though if you think otherwise. As memorable though as the beach scene is in Saving I really don't think you could call it significantly set on a beach. Ryan's Daughter on the other hand at least one third of the film was shot on the beach or clifftops. Ones like The Small Back Room I also think had enough significant footage to quality as the last third of the film was defusing a bomb on the beach.♦
Dr. Blofeld20:16, 21 June 2014 (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:Religious buildings
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. This tree includes convents and other buildings like hospitals and some others. These are not places of worship. The absence of a main article and the fact that there is a poorly thought out redirect does not change the need for an article and this category tree which should be the parent for
Category:Places of worship.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We do need some sort of container category for things like religious museums, religion office/administration buildings, and the like. You might be able to get away with calling a convent or monastery a place of worship, but not some of these others. That said, since there are so many subcategories that use the terminology "places of worship", maybe the target category should be developed into a sub-container-category rather than being the redirect that is it now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
oppose New name would not match the category contents which there is no rational reason to purge. Read the contents.
Hmains (
talk)
02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Not all religious buildings are places of worship. The Quakers have meeting houses for theri meetings, but theri metings are not for worship in the conventional sense.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - Oppose the specific nomination, because not all religion-related buildings are places of worship, of course (and not all "places of worship" are "buildings"). But query: Can buildings properly be said to be "religious"? Wouldn't it make more sense to describe these as "religion-related ..." or "Religion-affiliated buildings" or something like that? --
Lquilter (
talk)
00:43, 30 May 2014 (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:Southern Directors in Bollywood
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 per nom. The fact that a director worked in Bollywood is certainly defining; what other region of the country they might have come from is not.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:40, 27 May 2014 (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 astronaut–politicians
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. This category represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each astronaut-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby an astronaut gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers.
Good Ol’factory(talk)
Keep -- Well enough populated to keep. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion?
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 25 May 2014 (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.
Actor-politicians
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. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each actor-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby an actor gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers.
Good Ol’factory(talk)
Keep -- Well enough populated to keep. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion?
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:22, 25 May 2014 (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.
Sportsperson-politicians
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. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each sportsperson-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby a sportsperson gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers.
Good Ol’factory(talk)
I think that the user's probably suggesting that in Canadian English, "athlete" = "sportsperson", as it tends to in American English. I'm not sure to what extent that is true, but I don't think we need to resolve it in this discussion.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's what I was guessing and addressing. I'm also Canadian, and can confirm that while that usage does exist among some speakers by virtue of the obvious AmE influence, it's not accepted as standard in CanE. But you're right that it's beyond the scope of this discussion; if the user wants to try (and fail) to get it renamed, they can shoot that blank some other time after the hyphenation issue is dealt with one way or the other.
Bearcat (
talk)
07:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Well enough populated to keep, at least in some cases. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion?
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:22, 25 May 2014 (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 Anglican church stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Within the Anglican Communion, "Anglican" vs. "Episcopal" has been essentially an ENGVAR issue, but now there are Anglican groups in the United States that have split off from the Episcopal Church, so this category likely includes some churches that are Anglican but not Episcopal. --
Orlady (
talk)
21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. Rather, I believe that we need to create a new set of container categories for Anglicanism in the United States, to include the Episcopal Church and the U.S. elements of the
Anglican realignment and other non-Episcopal Anglican groups. The category
Category:Episcopal churches in the United States is defined as containing churches affiliated with the Anglican denomination
Episcopal Church (United States), and it is linked to other categories specific to that denomination. That denominational category structure is entirely valid. The problem is that there are Anglican churches and denominational organizations that aren't Episcopal, such as
Reformed Anglican Church,
Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and
Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Non-Episcopal Anglican churches can be expected to show up as "Anglican stubs," but they should not be treated as "Episcopal stubs." --
Orlady (
talk)
15:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I can't see that there's any good reason not to match the naming of a stub category to its non-stub parent, even when we are dealing with ENGVAR issues.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)reply
REname per nom. This is the name of the denomination. Episcopalian might be an alternative, but one would have to start by renaming the articles (many of them). However, they are part of the Anglican Communion (at least at present) and parents should not be renmed to match.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
A few days ago I took a stab at doing that by creating
Category:Anglicanism in the United States, which I believe was a needed addition to the category hierarchy -- to match the global categories and because not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians. Your note here reminded me that I needed to continue populating that category -- and I also created
Category:Anglican churches in the United States -- and I placed this stub category into that new parent category (I also left in the Episcopal churches category). Since I have never been either an Anglican or a scholar of religion, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to do an authoritative job of organizing the Anglicanism category into subcategories. Other participants in this discussion should take a look at what I've done and see how it affects your opinion on the category name. (Also, if you think I made mistakes in category structure or categorization of specific items, PLEASE fix my errors!) --
Orlady (
talk)
23:03, 26 June 2014 (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.
Baseball player-managers
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. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each player-manager is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters. The parent category is correctly hyphenated per the guideline:
Category:Player-coaches.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Need to re-name the category into " USSR dog breeds", or " Soviet dog breeds". The reason for need is that some dog breeds originated in Russia, while some in USSR, and they differ. However due to the fact that Russia inherited Soviet "brands" , including authorship for most Soviet inventions, a lot of dog breeds are referred to as "Russian" while in reality they could origin in different countries — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Afru (
talk •
contribs)
21:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films set on beaches
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 as non-defining. I've seen a great many films on this list that simply have a single scene on a beach, some more memorable than others. I don't see how we could retain this and not then have films set in meadows, films set in fields, films set on sidewalks, etc. If kept, the category would need to be seriously pruned so that only films like
The Beach (film), predominantly set on a beach, are permitted.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
At this point, I'd have no objection to withdrawing this, unless someone feels strongly it should go ahead. I think the category needs to be pruned of a lot of films that are not defined by beach settings, but I personally have no interested in doing so.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I agree, can we come to some sort of agreement then? Cheers. The problem for me is that although films like From Here to Eternity and Get Carter aren't mostly set on a beach or anything like it they're really quite notable for beach scenes. Obviously it is silly to categorize every film with a beach scene as such but I think we need a way to document the notable ones without implying that the films are set on a beach. A solution could be to keep the category to those which are half or fully set on a beach and to create a list of films which have notable beach scenes in them which are covered in multiple sources. ♦
Dr. Blofeld07:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Weak keep, but I agree with the o.p. that it needs to be ensured that this genuinely is restricted to "films which are set on beaches or have sizable or memorable sections of films on a beach". Only "weak", because I do question whether this is ever going to be useful to anyone.
Mogism (
talk)
20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Actually, On the Beach, despite its name, shouldn't be included imo. Neither should the Bond films, nor Some Like It Hot. I think much pruning needs to be done, but that's not a reason to delete, in itself.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep but I agree it needs to be better defined or instead replaced with a source list with a summary. It's not supposed to be for every film which ever had one beach scene in it. But those films which are predominantly set on a beach or have scenes on a beach in it which the film is famous for. It's a category I was looking for.♦
Dr. Blofeld20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - Simply having scenes (even important scenes) set on a beach isn't a defining characteristic. The films in this category have nothing substantive in common. -
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
02:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Wait, now even as nominator, I have to point out that a film that is set primarily on a beach is a bona fide setting. And we do have some of those. So I'm going to have to change my own !vote to keep and prune if necessary.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)reply
The mere fact that it may be logically possible to determine membership in the category (or not) doesn't address the issue of whether it is a meaningful or helpful category. -
Jason A. Quest (
talk)
16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Shawn in Montreal: I think we can agree on narrowing it down to those films which are primarily set on beaches strictly and we can state this in the category talk page. We can leave a note saying only films primarily set on beaches can be included. Ones like The Seventh Seal and The Beach. The thing is what about ones like Saving Private Ryan and Ryan's Daughter which have significant footage on a beach. Would they be included? I think we need some leeway. we just need to draw line somewhere! Can you withdraw this? Otherwise it'll probably be deleted entirely and I think it has some use.♦
Dr. Blofeld17:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)reply
You're probably well up on a lot of the films so feel free to remove the ones from the category you're not happy with. I'm not sure about Saving Private Ryan but I think Ryan's Daughter has enough beach footage to qualify, no objection though if you think otherwise. As memorable though as the beach scene is in Saving I really don't think you could call it significantly set on a beach. Ryan's Daughter on the other hand at least one third of the film was shot on the beach or clifftops. Ones like The Small Back Room I also think had enough significant footage to quality as the last third of the film was defusing a bomb on the beach.♦
Dr. Blofeld20:16, 21 June 2014 (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:Religious buildings
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. This tree includes convents and other buildings like hospitals and some others. These are not places of worship. The absence of a main article and the fact that there is a poorly thought out redirect does not change the need for an article and this category tree which should be the parent for
Category:Places of worship.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. We do need some sort of container category for things like religious museums, religion office/administration buildings, and the like. You might be able to get away with calling a convent or monastery a place of worship, but not some of these others. That said, since there are so many subcategories that use the terminology "places of worship", maybe the target category should be developed into a sub-container-category rather than being the redirect that is it now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
oppose New name would not match the category contents which there is no rational reason to purge. Read the contents.
Hmains (
talk)
02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Not all religious buildings are places of worship. The Quakers have meeting houses for theri meetings, but theri metings are not for worship in the conventional sense.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - Oppose the specific nomination, because not all religion-related buildings are places of worship, of course (and not all "places of worship" are "buildings"). But query: Can buildings properly be said to be "religious"? Wouldn't it make more sense to describe these as "religion-related ..." or "Religion-affiliated buildings" or something like that? --
Lquilter (
talk)
00:43, 30 May 2014 (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:Southern Directors in Bollywood
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 per nom. The fact that a director worked in Bollywood is certainly defining; what other region of the country they might have come from is not.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:40, 27 May 2014 (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 astronaut–politicians
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. This category represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each astronaut-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby an astronaut gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers.
Good Ol’factory(talk)
Keep -- Well enough populated to keep. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion?
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:21, 25 May 2014 (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.
Actor-politicians
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. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each actor-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby an actor gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers.
Good Ol’factory(talk)
Keep -- Well enough populated to keep. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion?
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:22, 25 May 2014 (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.
Sportsperson-politicians
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. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each sportsperson-politician is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)reply
I think it's the fact that it's a single person that is controlling, not the fact that they are two separate careers. And in any case—the entire justification to categorize by this intersection is that there is some connection between the two careers. If we are categorizing people who just happened to have two careers, and there is no connection at all between the two, we probably should not be doing it by category. But these have been justified in the past as representing a phenomenon whereby a sportsperson gains notoriety and then bootstraps that notoriety into a political career. Thus, I if we're going to allow the categories, I think we can say that there's a pretty close connection between the two in the same way that there's a connection between the singer-songwriter careers.
Good Ol’factory(talk)
I think that the user's probably suggesting that in Canadian English, "athlete" = "sportsperson", as it tends to in American English. I'm not sure to what extent that is true, but I don't think we need to resolve it in this discussion.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's what I was guessing and addressing. I'm also Canadian, and can confirm that while that usage does exist among some speakers by virtue of the obvious AmE influence, it's not accepted as standard in CanE. But you're right that it's beyond the scope of this discussion; if the user wants to try (and fail) to get it renamed, they can shoot that blank some other time after the hyphenation issue is dealt with one way or the other.
Bearcat (
talk)
07:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Well enough populated to keep, at least in some cases. This is about politicians by previous career. Their previous career is likely to be very significant in the way they operate as politicians.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Did you read the nomination and the comments above? Deletion is not being proposed and has not been placed on the table by anyone else's comments. Or is yours some sort of "pre-emptive" !vote in anticipation that someone will bring up deletion?
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:22, 25 May 2014 (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 Anglican church stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep. Within the Anglican Communion, "Anglican" vs. "Episcopal" has been essentially an ENGVAR issue, but now there are Anglican groups in the United States that have split off from the Episcopal Church, so this category likely includes some churches that are Anglican but not Episcopal. --
Orlady (
talk)
21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't. Rather, I believe that we need to create a new set of container categories for Anglicanism in the United States, to include the Episcopal Church and the U.S. elements of the
Anglican realignment and other non-Episcopal Anglican groups. The category
Category:Episcopal churches in the United States is defined as containing churches affiliated with the Anglican denomination
Episcopal Church (United States), and it is linked to other categories specific to that denomination. That denominational category structure is entirely valid. The problem is that there are Anglican churches and denominational organizations that aren't Episcopal, such as
Reformed Anglican Church,
Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and
Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Non-Episcopal Anglican churches can be expected to show up as "Anglican stubs," but they should not be treated as "Episcopal stubs." --
Orlady (
talk)
15:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. I can't see that there's any good reason not to match the naming of a stub category to its non-stub parent, even when we are dealing with ENGVAR issues.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)reply
REname per nom. This is the name of the denomination. Episcopalian might be an alternative, but one would have to start by renaming the articles (many of them). However, they are part of the Anglican Communion (at least at present) and parents should not be renmed to match.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)reply
A few days ago I took a stab at doing that by creating
Category:Anglicanism in the United States, which I believe was a needed addition to the category hierarchy -- to match the global categories and because not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians. Your note here reminded me that I needed to continue populating that category -- and I also created
Category:Anglican churches in the United States -- and I placed this stub category into that new parent category (I also left in the Episcopal churches category). Since I have never been either an Anglican or a scholar of religion, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to do an authoritative job of organizing the Anglicanism category into subcategories. Other participants in this discussion should take a look at what I've done and see how it affects your opinion on the category name. (Also, if you think I made mistakes in category structure or categorization of specific items, PLEASE fix my errors!) --
Orlady (
talk)
23:03, 26 June 2014 (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.
Baseball player-managers
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. These categories represent an inappropriate implementation of the guideline
WP:ENDASH. One example that is given is that of
singer-songwriter: "Wrong: a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Like singer-songwriters, each player-manager is one person, and so it should be hyphenated, not endashed, just like
Category:Singer-songwriters. The parent category is correctly hyphenated per the guideline:
Category:Player-coaches.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:33, 21 May 2014 (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.