The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. (A case might be able to be made to have both—the scientific one could group articles about species, and the common name one could group articles about cuisine, cultural topics, etc. One could be a subcategory of the other. I'm not mandating this or implementing it, just throwing it out there as a possibility.)Good Ol’factory(talk)01:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Support where there is a common name, I consider that we should use it, but we should have a cat-redirect from the scientific name. If the objection is that it is too similar to the country, though that is not coincidental, we might make the target
Category:Turkeys (birds), though personally, I do not think that to be necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Keep present title. Is Rhegminornis a turkey? According to that article, it is. According to
turkey (bird), it's not (but the turkey article doesn't acknowledge other genera in Meleagrididae; there needs to be a separate article that's not a redirect for
Meleagrididae or a broader scope for
turkey (bird). What are our readers who are searching for turkeys interested in? Most likely
domesticated turkey, or perhaps
wild turkey. They're unlikely to be interested in
turkey (bird) which covers a well known domesticated animal, it's common wild ancestor, and its rare and extinct wild cousins.
Turkey (bird) is a title that interferes with readers finding the information they want (if they are not interested in the country). Don't make it worse by moving a precise category title to a concept that is more ambiguous.
Plantdrew (
talk)
06:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Keep present title; it's more precise to use the scientific name, and a generic "turkey" category could redirect here if people really think such a category is necessary. Unless we're going to proceed to rename all scientific family name categories to their common names, it makes no sense to change this one. And at the very least, it would need to be a redirect rather than deleted completely.
MeegsC (
talk)
03:57, 11 January 2016 (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:Jharkhand MLAs 2010–
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:Bihar MLAs 2010–
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:Calvinist and Reformed artists and writers
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 non-notable intersection between religion and occupation. We don't have an article on the combination, and without pure
WP:SYNTH, one could likely not be written. I see no reliable sources suggesting that one can read a book or look at a piece of art that one hasn't seen before and doesn't know the writer and artist, and demonstrably state that the writer is Calvinist - no theologian so says, no book reviewer so says, and no art critic so says, but WP claims to know? The subcat of hymnwriters, as presumably expressing the focus of devotion between various protestant branches is distinguishing is an exception and should be preserved moved up to its other parent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
With the sources I provided I could easily write such an article. These are book length treatments on the subject! There are also journal articles and bits in other books that can be found with a quick search. I have placed several people in the category only when reliable sources confirm their religion. These sources are commenting on the effect of their faith on their art. Calvinism actually has a particularly pronounced effect on art because of beliefs about idolatry. --
JFH (
talk)
18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Some journal articles:
Donnelly, Marian C. "Calvinism in the Work of Jacob Jordaens." The Art Quarterly 22 (1959): 356-366.
HUBBARD, TOM. "„FIDDLERS AND PAINTERS AND SUCHLIKE IRRELIGIOUS FOLK”?: CALVINISM, MUSIC AND THE VISUAL ARTS IN SCOTLAND AT THE TURN OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY." PUBLICATIONES: 55.
Larsen, Erik. "Calvinistic economy and 17th century Dutch art." Collab. Jane P. Davidson. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications (1979).
All about Dutch art - if some random Swiss painting from the 1700s were evaluated would the art experts be able to always tell (it is distinguishing, so one contends) if the artist were Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, humanist, or bald or male or overweight or other bulloney? where are the reliable sources to show that to be true?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
If kept, split because artists and writers shouldn't be combined in one category. As for deleting or keeping, weak keep mainly because as a subcategory it fits in
Category:Christian writers by denomination and
Category:Christian artists with existing other denomination subcategories - but at the same time I'm a bit skeptic whether we should have this split by denomination to begin with, except we should definitely have such a split for religious professionals (clergy, theologians and perhaps hymnwriters).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Split or keep -- Writers at least are liable to be influenced by their beliefs in what they produce. Contrary to
Carlossuarez46's view this is not about Dutch art. The three articles that I checked were two American ministers and a French sculptor.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Split per nom, although I'm tempted to say delete the whole tree as all the categories seem only to hold a miniscule sample of the full contents.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. (A case might be able to be made to have both—the scientific one could group articles about species, and the common name one could group articles about cuisine, cultural topics, etc. One could be a subcategory of the other. I'm not mandating this or implementing it, just throwing it out there as a possibility.)Good Ol’factory(talk)01:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Support where there is a common name, I consider that we should use it, but we should have a cat-redirect from the scientific name. If the objection is that it is too similar to the country, though that is not coincidental, we might make the target
Category:Turkeys (birds), though personally, I do not think that to be necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Keep present title. Is Rhegminornis a turkey? According to that article, it is. According to
turkey (bird), it's not (but the turkey article doesn't acknowledge other genera in Meleagrididae; there needs to be a separate article that's not a redirect for
Meleagrididae or a broader scope for
turkey (bird). What are our readers who are searching for turkeys interested in? Most likely
domesticated turkey, or perhaps
wild turkey. They're unlikely to be interested in
turkey (bird) which covers a well known domesticated animal, it's common wild ancestor, and its rare and extinct wild cousins.
Turkey (bird) is a title that interferes with readers finding the information they want (if they are not interested in the country). Don't make it worse by moving a precise category title to a concept that is more ambiguous.
Plantdrew (
talk)
06:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose/Keep present title; it's more precise to use the scientific name, and a generic "turkey" category could redirect here if people really think such a category is necessary. Unless we're going to proceed to rename all scientific family name categories to their common names, it makes no sense to change this one. And at the very least, it would need to be a redirect rather than deleted completely.
MeegsC (
talk)
03:57, 11 January 2016 (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:Jharkhand MLAs 2010–
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:Bihar MLAs 2010–
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:Calvinist and Reformed artists and writers
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 non-notable intersection between religion and occupation. We don't have an article on the combination, and without pure
WP:SYNTH, one could likely not be written. I see no reliable sources suggesting that one can read a book or look at a piece of art that one hasn't seen before and doesn't know the writer and artist, and demonstrably state that the writer is Calvinist - no theologian so says, no book reviewer so says, and no art critic so says, but WP claims to know? The subcat of hymnwriters, as presumably expressing the focus of devotion between various protestant branches is distinguishing is an exception and should be preserved moved up to its other parent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
With the sources I provided I could easily write such an article. These are book length treatments on the subject! There are also journal articles and bits in other books that can be found with a quick search. I have placed several people in the category only when reliable sources confirm their religion. These sources are commenting on the effect of their faith on their art. Calvinism actually has a particularly pronounced effect on art because of beliefs about idolatry. --
JFH (
talk)
18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Some journal articles:
Donnelly, Marian C. "Calvinism in the Work of Jacob Jordaens." The Art Quarterly 22 (1959): 356-366.
HUBBARD, TOM. "„FIDDLERS AND PAINTERS AND SUCHLIKE IRRELIGIOUS FOLK”?: CALVINISM, MUSIC AND THE VISUAL ARTS IN SCOTLAND AT THE TURN OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY." PUBLICATIONES: 55.
Larsen, Erik. "Calvinistic economy and 17th century Dutch art." Collab. Jane P. Davidson. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications (1979).
All about Dutch art - if some random Swiss painting from the 1700s were evaluated would the art experts be able to always tell (it is distinguishing, so one contends) if the artist were Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, humanist, or bald or male or overweight or other bulloney? where are the reliable sources to show that to be true?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
If kept, split because artists and writers shouldn't be combined in one category. As for deleting or keeping, weak keep mainly because as a subcategory it fits in
Category:Christian writers by denomination and
Category:Christian artists with existing other denomination subcategories - but at the same time I'm a bit skeptic whether we should have this split by denomination to begin with, except we should definitely have such a split for religious professionals (clergy, theologians and perhaps hymnwriters).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Split or keep -- Writers at least are liable to be influenced by their beliefs in what they produce. Contrary to
Carlossuarez46's view this is not about Dutch art. The three articles that I checked were two American ministers and a French sculptor.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Split per nom, although I'm tempted to say delete the whole tree as all the categories seem only to hold a miniscule sample of the full contents.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:58, 18 December 2015 (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.