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 parent category currently has a very unbalanced set of child categories: a huge child
category:Monks, a huge child
category:Nuns and a tiny child category for monks and nuns together which is the nominated category. So let's get rid of the tiny category and let's completely separate Monks and Nuns, as they are already 99% separated anyway. (Note: there is a CfD about the parent category as well, but that is independent of this issue.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Suicide and being a nun/monk isn't really a well-connected topic. Indeed, the reasons for suicide in this category are as massively different as is found in the general population. I have created
Category:Self-immolations by Buddhists in response, as this is a topic of much history and study. I have never seen any study of monks and nuns of various religions and the difference between their suicides and that of the general populace.
SFB22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Empty manually then delete -- The category has six members all Buddhist - 3 self-immolations will be better in SFK's new category. One was a sick convert who killed himself while sick. The other two killed themselves becasue they were in an impossible position for politcial reasons. I am not sure that status as a monk/nun was significant in most cases. I would thus merge all but the self-immolations (which should be a sub-category) to Buddhist suicides. I suspect that belief in reincarnation makes suicide more acceptable than in countreis with a Christian heritage.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:43, 4 December 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:Muslims by occupation
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 intersection between religion and occupation. Other than religious workers (like Caliphs, Imams, Qadis, etc.), do Muslims do dentistry, accountancy, or whatever different than non-Muslims?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I fully agree on dentistry and accountancy, but I would prefer to keep
Category:Muslim monarchs, for the reason that Christian Europe and Islamic Middle East have been at state of war with each other over some 1000 years. Although monarchs weren't religious workers, the intersection of Muslim with monarchs is far from trivial from a history perspective.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support inclusive of moving some categories down to the higher level categories. This will discourage creation of non-notable intersections (as mentioned above by
User:Carlossuarez46) and focus the religious nature of the majority of the contents (cf.
Category:Christian religious workers). I think Carlos is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting the deletion of
Category:Scientists of medieval Islam, which is most clearly a topic of wide study and interest
SFB22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
SFB, straw man argument. "medieval Islam" is used as a time/place. Such as "ancient Greece" - it doesn't mean that any of those folks held the beliefs ascribed to them, much less that an alchemist of medieval Islam was a religious worker - as I'm sure no one would suggest that various scientists persecuted in the name of religion (Islam, Christianity, or spaghetti monsterism) are religious workers for that religion.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:29, 1 December 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:Christians by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was not consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Notes: I have added Roman Catholic and Protestants to the nomination. The various Protestant sub-cats by denomination can follow as speedy nominations.
Category:Copts by occupation should be removed from this hierarchy after the renaming, as that is an ethnic rather than religious category, and most of the occupations within it are not related to religion. –
FayenaticLondon23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support A focus on religious workers and moving non-religious workers higher up will better gather the religious occupations and also discourage the creation of non-notable intersections of religion and occupation (e.g. Rastafari alpine skiiers).
SFB22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Is an author who writes clearly religious works a religious worker? If he is not directly employed by the Church? C. S. Lewis is clearly a Prostestant writer, but is he a religious worker?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Carlossuarez46:@
Johnpacklambert: You're both raising a fair point on which occupations are and which aren't religious workers, and I agree that monarchs and writers shouldn't be in a religious workers category. (C.S. Lewis would rather belong in the tree for being an apologist and a (lay) theologian than for being a writer.) Would you withdraw your opposition if we can reach consensus about the definition of a religious worker? The reason I'm asking is that I do find the concept of a religious worker very meaningful, and I guess that we can easily agree upon e.g. clergy, monks and nuns, ministers, evangelists, missionaries and theologians being religious workers.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:40, 5 December 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:Sikhs by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:25, 30 December 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:Hindus by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I would suggest splitting the nominated category (similar to Muslims above), by keeping Dynasties, Monarchs, Pacifists, Politicians and Warriors in an occupation category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:37, 29 November 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:Bahá'ís by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, same as my comments above. not all Bahá'í poets, for example are religious work, Chase for example, seemed to work much of his life for an insurance company - pretty secular to most folks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:01, 1 December 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:Buddhists by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support nomination. In addition I would suggest to move Monarchs and Politicians directly into
Category:Buddhists. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcocapelle (
talk •
contribs) 08:42, 29 November 2014
Delete per my comments on the Muslim one. Not all Buddhist writers are religious workers. This is again a fallacy of WP. The mere fact that a consensus cannot be reached that there is no intersection between ReligionX and OccupationY, a category is kept, and now, it's deemed that anyone who fits the intersection is now "working" for or on behalf of the ReligionX. Bulloney.... Reminiscent of the anti-Catholic fears of JFK-working for America or the Roman Catholic Church. Well, WP is clear it's the latter. Well done.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:05, 1 December 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:Jewish religious occupations
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.
Not really. It's not maintainable - try to purge into a tree that everything below belongs entirely to everything above -- first of all, use the example of Christian Hebraists... our unsourced article on
Hebraist says "A Hebraist is a specialist in Jewish, Hebrew and Hebraic studies". So, one could well theorize that a specialist in Jewish studies (by which I assume means a study of Judaism, although that's also not clear) would come with different biases were they of Christian belief than of Jewish belief (but see the whole foofrah at ARBCOM over whether dedicated Christians or atheists have biases on the Historicity of Jesus article, on which the jury is still out), that the intersection might be defining, although I'm not sold on that. However, it seems relatively implausible that those Hebraists who study the Hebrew language have inherent bias due to their religious beliefs, so hence no
Category:Linguists by religion tree. Those who study the Jewish religion, and publish religious works (rabbis with commentaries or Christian writers of exegesis), presumably can be "religious workers" - those who toil away academia are likely not, but alas, there's no distinction in these categories, and for many it's really impossible to know why anyone studied anything 200 years after they're dead.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)reply
To me this just confirms that we can have discussions about whether individual occupations belong in these categories and, possibly, that we need to define the concept of a religious occupation more clearly. But anyway that's different from deleting the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:15, 2 December 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:Mugham albums by artist nationality
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:DC shared film universe
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Just have the category deleted; the fictional universe is still developing (it is not even officially titled yet) and no future DC film (except BvS:DoJ) has yet begun shooting.
Kailash29792 (
talk)
07:57, 5 December 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:DC shared film universe soundtracks
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:Personal Ordinariates
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:Prince-Bishoprics of Estonia
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: Estonia/Latvia are the modern terms for Livonia now, and many people may not know what Livonia is. Although that was the name when the Prince-Bishoprics were around, I think it'd be best to keep with the modern-day terms.
-Fimatic (
talk |
contribs)
05:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support matches parent category and better reflects topic. Disagree with Fimatic in that if people think Livonia is obscure, then they probably won't be searching articles on Livonia or its Prince-Bishoprics.
SFB18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support, actually the
Duchy of Estonia did exist back then, it was located north of Livonia, in the northern part of present day Estonia, the southern part of present day Estonia was part of Livonia, and the Bishoprics grouped in this category were Livonian. --
Nug (
talk)
21:43, 28 November 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:Hungarian clerics
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:Organizations affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
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: Its a nasty subject. there are groups, perhaps groups is a better word, that have sworn traditional Arabic oaths to ISIL. There are those that want to say that this makes them part of ISIL and, without suitable categorisation options, this is how the groups will be defined. I am also planning to start a category of "organisations/groups allied with the I...." Its amazing that they are defined as Islamic. Anyway, this is what we've got. Related discussion is at:
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc. TY
Gregkaye✍♪16:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete is declaring allegiance to some group or another defining for that group? Even in this instance? We don't have, for example,
Category:World War II Axis members or
Category:World War I Central Powers or anything akin to that, which presumably was much more formal for each country to become than just saying, "hey we like what you're all about and we'll help you do what you're doing" which essentially is these pledges of allegiance.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Carlossuarez46 editors are either going to categorise these groups as in allegiance with ISIL or they are going to categorise them as ISIL. The former is more accurate and doesn't falsely present an escalated presentation of the situation. The effect of deletion would be that Wikipedia will say that ISIL are spread in various locations in Africa and the Middle-East. In this case Wikipedia will have enforced a falsehood. This is not relating to groups saying "hey we like what you're all about". This is about groups that go out and kill people.
Gregkaye✍♪13:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Unsourced material that ISIL is "in Libya", etc., can be deleted by any editor. That someone has pledged allegiance to a group, whether a good or bad group, is not something on which we ought to categorize. Many wars and criminal enterprises - ISIL seems to be both - are rendered by proxy, but we don't categorize the proxies by their puppet masters, real or aspired to. I just think it's a bad idea.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, the defining characteristic for these groups may be jihadist, islamist, terrorist, or anything like that. But the proposed category has no potential to be a defining characteristic, per Carlossuarez.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The category was not tagged until November 25.
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:Vaasan Palloseura players
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:Cricketers who died while playing
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 used to be called
Category:Cricket deaths but it was renamed this week as a knee-jerk response to the death of
Phillip Hughes. It will only ever hold a handful of subjects at most. Of the three men named in the category at present (Phillip Hughes having been removed because he died in hospital two days after his accident), only one is potentially valid.
Wasim Raja died of a heart attack playing in a minor match a long time after he retired from competitive cricket; he could have been anywhere when it happened and it was not due to anything on the cricket field.
Darryn Randall died in hospital.
Jasper Vinall was hit on the head during a game but it is not known if he died on the field; he may well have been taken elsewhere for treatment and possibly died days later; as did
George Summers. The category should be reverted back to its original name so that it encompasses cricket-related deaths. Jack | talk page11:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support – There is no reason to distinguish people who died on the field, as opposed to dying in hospital shortly afterwards as a direct result of something that happened on the field. –
Smyth\
talk13:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
In the category itself it says it is being considered fro deletion rather than renaming, please can this be corrected on the category page ? I support a rename but not deletion! Thanks
GrahamHardy (
talk)
14:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi Graham, I agree with you but that banner defaults to "deletion". It should say "discussion" as categories can be renamed or merged in this process. I don't know how to get the banner wording changed though. Jack | talk page15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - We should not put an overly sharp edge on death categories because the moment death is declared is rather arbitrary. A cricketer could be brain dead on the field, but life support keeps his heart beating until the diagnosis is confirmed at hospital. Did he die on or off the field? A better criteria is whether the death was caused by a cricket injury, regardless of where the victim is pronounced dead.
JehochmanTalk18:05, 28 November 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:Jimmy Cauty
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:Lahore Ahmadiyya Emirs
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:Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden
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. An opposed speedy. The article is at
Sailors' Snug Harbor;
Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden redirects there and is listed in the lead as an alternate name. The opposition was based on the article name, but there has been no activity on the talk page suggesting a name change. I propose renaming for now to bring conformity with the category name and article name. If the article name ever changes in the future, then so too should the category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The organization's official name is Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden, shortened to Snug Harbor, not Sailor's Snug Harbor, which is the old name used for NRHP purposes. The current
Sailors' Snug Harbor should actually be moved to the redirected Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden.
Jllm06 (
talk)
21:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Of course, what is important for Wikipedia names is not the official name, but the common name. This is an issue for the article, though. Is anyone planning on proposing a rename for it?
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:45, 25 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: The parent category currently has a very unbalanced set of child categories: a huge child
category:Monks, a huge child
category:Nuns and a tiny child category for monks and nuns together which is the nominated category. So let's get rid of the tiny category and let's completely separate Monks and Nuns, as they are already 99% separated anyway. (Note: there is a CfD about the parent category as well, but that is independent of this issue.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Suicide and being a nun/monk isn't really a well-connected topic. Indeed, the reasons for suicide in this category are as massively different as is found in the general population. I have created
Category:Self-immolations by Buddhists in response, as this is a topic of much history and study. I have never seen any study of monks and nuns of various religions and the difference between their suicides and that of the general populace.
SFB22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Empty manually then delete -- The category has six members all Buddhist - 3 self-immolations will be better in SFK's new category. One was a sick convert who killed himself while sick. The other two killed themselves becasue they were in an impossible position for politcial reasons. I am not sure that status as a monk/nun was significant in most cases. I would thus merge all but the self-immolations (which should be a sub-category) to Buddhist suicides. I suspect that belief in reincarnation makes suicide more acceptable than in countreis with a Christian heritage.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:43, 4 December 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:Muslims by occupation
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 intersection between religion and occupation. Other than religious workers (like Caliphs, Imams, Qadis, etc.), do Muslims do dentistry, accountancy, or whatever different than non-Muslims?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I fully agree on dentistry and accountancy, but I would prefer to keep
Category:Muslim monarchs, for the reason that Christian Europe and Islamic Middle East have been at state of war with each other over some 1000 years. Although monarchs weren't religious workers, the intersection of Muslim with monarchs is far from trivial from a history perspective.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support inclusive of moving some categories down to the higher level categories. This will discourage creation of non-notable intersections (as mentioned above by
User:Carlossuarez46) and focus the religious nature of the majority of the contents (cf.
Category:Christian religious workers). I think Carlos is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater by suggesting the deletion of
Category:Scientists of medieval Islam, which is most clearly a topic of wide study and interest
SFB22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
SFB, straw man argument. "medieval Islam" is used as a time/place. Such as "ancient Greece" - it doesn't mean that any of those folks held the beliefs ascribed to them, much less that an alchemist of medieval Islam was a religious worker - as I'm sure no one would suggest that various scientists persecuted in the name of religion (Islam, Christianity, or spaghetti monsterism) are religious workers for that religion.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
22:29, 1 December 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:Christians by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was not consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Notes: I have added Roman Catholic and Protestants to the nomination. The various Protestant sub-cats by denomination can follow as speedy nominations.
Category:Copts by occupation should be removed from this hierarchy after the renaming, as that is an ethnic rather than religious category, and most of the occupations within it are not related to religion. –
FayenaticLondon23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support A focus on religious workers and moving non-religious workers higher up will better gather the religious occupations and also discourage the creation of non-notable intersections of religion and occupation (e.g. Rastafari alpine skiiers).
SFB22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Is an author who writes clearly religious works a religious worker? If he is not directly employed by the Church? C. S. Lewis is clearly a Prostestant writer, but is he a religious worker?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Carlossuarez46:@
Johnpacklambert: You're both raising a fair point on which occupations are and which aren't religious workers, and I agree that monarchs and writers shouldn't be in a religious workers category. (C.S. Lewis would rather belong in the tree for being an apologist and a (lay) theologian than for being a writer.) Would you withdraw your opposition if we can reach consensus about the definition of a religious worker? The reason I'm asking is that I do find the concept of a religious worker very meaningful, and I guess that we can easily agree upon e.g. clergy, monks and nuns, ministers, evangelists, missionaries and theologians being religious workers.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:40, 5 December 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:Sikhs by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:25, 30 December 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:Hindus by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I would suggest splitting the nominated category (similar to Muslims above), by keeping Dynasties, Monarchs, Pacifists, Politicians and Warriors in an occupation category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:37, 29 November 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:Bahá'ís by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, same as my comments above. not all Bahá'í poets, for example are religious work, Chase for example, seemed to work much of his life for an insurance company - pretty secular to most folks.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:01, 1 December 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:Buddhists by occupation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename and re parent any articles that no longer belong after the rename happens. If these really should be deleted, then that issue can be raised after in a new discussion since this close in no way prevents that follow on discussion, but there was no consensus here to delete.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support nomination. In addition I would suggest to move Monarchs and Politicians directly into
Category:Buddhists. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marcocapelle (
talk •
contribs) 08:42, 29 November 2014
Delete per my comments on the Muslim one. Not all Buddhist writers are religious workers. This is again a fallacy of WP. The mere fact that a consensus cannot be reached that there is no intersection between ReligionX and OccupationY, a category is kept, and now, it's deemed that anyone who fits the intersection is now "working" for or on behalf of the ReligionX. Bulloney.... Reminiscent of the anti-Catholic fears of JFK-working for America or the Roman Catholic Church. Well, WP is clear it's the latter. Well done.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:05, 1 December 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:Jewish religious occupations
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.
Not really. It's not maintainable - try to purge into a tree that everything below belongs entirely to everything above -- first of all, use the example of Christian Hebraists... our unsourced article on
Hebraist says "A Hebraist is a specialist in Jewish, Hebrew and Hebraic studies". So, one could well theorize that a specialist in Jewish studies (by which I assume means a study of Judaism, although that's also not clear) would come with different biases were they of Christian belief than of Jewish belief (but see the whole foofrah at ARBCOM over whether dedicated Christians or atheists have biases on the Historicity of Jesus article, on which the jury is still out), that the intersection might be defining, although I'm not sold on that. However, it seems relatively implausible that those Hebraists who study the Hebrew language have inherent bias due to their religious beliefs, so hence no
Category:Linguists by religion tree. Those who study the Jewish religion, and publish religious works (rabbis with commentaries or Christian writers of exegesis), presumably can be "religious workers" - those who toil away academia are likely not, but alas, there's no distinction in these categories, and for many it's really impossible to know why anyone studied anything 200 years after they're dead.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)reply
To me this just confirms that we can have discussions about whether individual occupations belong in these categories and, possibly, that we need to define the concept of a religious occupation more clearly. But anyway that's different from deleting the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:15, 2 December 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:Mugham albums by artist nationality
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:DC shared film universe
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Just have the category deleted; the fictional universe is still developing (it is not even officially titled yet) and no future DC film (except BvS:DoJ) has yet begun shooting.
Kailash29792 (
talk)
07:57, 5 December 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:DC shared film universe soundtracks
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:Personal Ordinariates
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:Prince-Bishoprics of Estonia
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: Estonia/Latvia are the modern terms for Livonia now, and many people may not know what Livonia is. Although that was the name when the Prince-Bishoprics were around, I think it'd be best to keep with the modern-day terms.
-Fimatic (
talk |
contribs)
05:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support matches parent category and better reflects topic. Disagree with Fimatic in that if people think Livonia is obscure, then they probably won't be searching articles on Livonia or its Prince-Bishoprics.
SFB18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support, actually the
Duchy of Estonia did exist back then, it was located north of Livonia, in the northern part of present day Estonia, the southern part of present day Estonia was part of Livonia, and the Bishoprics grouped in this category were Livonian. --
Nug (
talk)
21:43, 28 November 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:Hungarian clerics
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:Organizations affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
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: Its a nasty subject. there are groups, perhaps groups is a better word, that have sworn traditional Arabic oaths to ISIL. There are those that want to say that this makes them part of ISIL and, without suitable categorisation options, this is how the groups will be defined. I am also planning to start a category of "organisations/groups allied with the I...." Its amazing that they are defined as Islamic. Anyway, this is what we've got. Related discussion is at:
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc. TY
Gregkaye✍♪16:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete is declaring allegiance to some group or another defining for that group? Even in this instance? We don't have, for example,
Category:World War II Axis members or
Category:World War I Central Powers or anything akin to that, which presumably was much more formal for each country to become than just saying, "hey we like what you're all about and we'll help you do what you're doing" which essentially is these pledges of allegiance.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Carlossuarez46 editors are either going to categorise these groups as in allegiance with ISIL or they are going to categorise them as ISIL. The former is more accurate and doesn't falsely present an escalated presentation of the situation. The effect of deletion would be that Wikipedia will say that ISIL are spread in various locations in Africa and the Middle-East. In this case Wikipedia will have enforced a falsehood. This is not relating to groups saying "hey we like what you're all about". This is about groups that go out and kill people.
Gregkaye✍♪13:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Unsourced material that ISIL is "in Libya", etc., can be deleted by any editor. That someone has pledged allegiance to a group, whether a good or bad group, is not something on which we ought to categorize. Many wars and criminal enterprises - ISIL seems to be both - are rendered by proxy, but we don't categorize the proxies by their puppet masters, real or aspired to. I just think it's a bad idea.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete, the defining characteristic for these groups may be jihadist, islamist, terrorist, or anything like that. But the proposed category has no potential to be a defining characteristic, per Carlossuarez.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The category was not tagged until November 25.
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:Vaasan Palloseura players
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:Cricketers who died while playing
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 used to be called
Category:Cricket deaths but it was renamed this week as a knee-jerk response to the death of
Phillip Hughes. It will only ever hold a handful of subjects at most. Of the three men named in the category at present (Phillip Hughes having been removed because he died in hospital two days after his accident), only one is potentially valid.
Wasim Raja died of a heart attack playing in a minor match a long time after he retired from competitive cricket; he could have been anywhere when it happened and it was not due to anything on the cricket field.
Darryn Randall died in hospital.
Jasper Vinall was hit on the head during a game but it is not known if he died on the field; he may well have been taken elsewhere for treatment and possibly died days later; as did
George Summers. The category should be reverted back to its original name so that it encompasses cricket-related deaths. Jack | talk page11:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support – There is no reason to distinguish people who died on the field, as opposed to dying in hospital shortly afterwards as a direct result of something that happened on the field. –
Smyth\
talk13:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
In the category itself it says it is being considered fro deletion rather than renaming, please can this be corrected on the category page ? I support a rename but not deletion! Thanks
GrahamHardy (
talk)
14:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi Graham, I agree with you but that banner defaults to "deletion". It should say "discussion" as categories can be renamed or merged in this process. I don't know how to get the banner wording changed though. Jack | talk page15:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support - We should not put an overly sharp edge on death categories because the moment death is declared is rather arbitrary. A cricketer could be brain dead on the field, but life support keeps his heart beating until the diagnosis is confirmed at hospital. Did he die on or off the field? A better criteria is whether the death was caused by a cricket injury, regardless of where the victim is pronounced dead.
JehochmanTalk18:05, 28 November 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:Jimmy Cauty
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:Lahore Ahmadiyya Emirs
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:Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden
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. An opposed speedy. The article is at
Sailors' Snug Harbor;
Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden redirects there and is listed in the lead as an alternate name. The opposition was based on the article name, but there has been no activity on the talk page suggesting a name change. I propose renaming for now to bring conformity with the category name and article name. If the article name ever changes in the future, then so too should the category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The organization's official name is Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden, shortened to Snug Harbor, not Sailor's Snug Harbor, which is the old name used for NRHP purposes. The current
Sailors' Snug Harbor should actually be moved to the redirected Snug Harbor Cultural Center and Botanical Garden.
Jllm06 (
talk)
21:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Of course, what is important for Wikipedia names is not the official name, but the common name. This is an issue for the article, though. Is anyone planning on proposing a rename for it?
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:45, 25 November 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.