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: merge It doesn't make sense to create an isolated year category while the whole medieval history of Armenia is categorized by century. (Note: after this merge a number of intermediate categories will become empty and can be deleted.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:22, 29 March 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.
Category:1062 establishments in Armenia
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: merge It doesn't make sense to create an isolated year category while the whole medieval history of Armenia is categorized by century. (Note: after this merge a number of intermediate categories will become empty and can be deleted.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- Little prospect of it getting enough siblings to be worthwhile. I have my doubts on whehter Armenia is in Europe, but that is perhaps my POV: if the precedent is that it is in both Europe and Asia we need both targets.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:43, 1 April 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.
Category:User sleep
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:Musical performers
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: Subcategory of
Category:Musicians, with dubious value — the difference between a "musician" and a "musical performer" would be, er, what exactly? Given what's actually categorized in here, I can marginally see what the creator was trying to get at (subcats
Category:Artistic and performing robots and
Category:One-man bands, four articles about types of musicians). But naming it this way, they missed — I just had to remove several individual people, on whom it was serving no substantive purpose except as a redundantly redundant repetition of other
Category:Musicians subcategories that they were already in. Upmerge to
Category:Musicians (or rename if somebody can figure out a clearer and less ambiguous way to name a "much better distinguished from its parent" subcategory for one-man bands and dancing glee club robots and troubadours and virtuosi.)
Bearcat (
talk)
20:54, 29 March 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.
Category:Wikipedia classification templates
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 (as categ creator). "Classification" in this case means
Wikipedia:Classification: "A Classification is used on category pages to show the hierarchy of the category".
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:Pelvic inflamatory disease
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: In theory this could be a valid category, but very few (if any) of the articles that have been placed in the category (
examples) actually belong in it. DexDor(talk)18:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - PID remains one of the most preventable and curable diseases worldwide and the reason that this is not generally known is precisely because all of the article/topics that have been placed in the category are interrelated according to the most recent and reliable medical sources. There are 340 million 'new' cases worldwide. Millions of others have the disease and don't know it. To adequately provide information that ties all these topics together and the role that they play in the diagnosis, epidemiology, the cure, prevention, and the treatment a category is appropriate. Respectfully,
Many of the articles that you put into the category (
someexamples) don't even mention PID so it can hardly be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of those topics! "that this is not generally known is precisely because all of the article/topics that have been placed in the category are interrelated" doesn't make any sense. DexDor(talk)20:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I think
Oculi meant a topic category; a topic category can have an eponymous article (same name as category), but a set category (with a plural title) wouldn't normally have an eponymous article. DexDor(talk)11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Inflammation is not the same thing as an infection, which is PID. It would be misleading to include any of the articles listed below in Inflammatory diseases of female pelvic organs because inflammation is simply a symptom of a bigger problem. Inflammation can be caused by PID, but it can also be caused by other diseases.Bfpage |
leave a message10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Several responses: 1) Sub-category
N73.9, which is the default ICD-10 code for Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, has an inclusion term saying that the concept includes infection or inflammation; 2) See
this page for what the World Health Organization defines as Inflammatory diseases of the female pelvic organs. You will notice that PID is a subset of this set of disease concepts; 3) If you read my comment above carefully you will see that I don't wish to include any of the articles you have listed below into the already existing category.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:46, 24 April 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.
Category:Churches in Ukraine
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.
CommentOppose: I'm completely perplexed as to how these are going to improve the categories. Various forms of buildings following various styles adhering to historical denominational architectural styles are listed in the existing categories. Some of them are still being used for active practice, others are heritage sites. The only method by which changing the nomenclature would make sense is to, then, create sub-cats for those still used actively by worshippers/adherents by any given denomination. While I can understand that you're attempting to create categories outside of the initial religious functions of these buildings, there are by no means enough examples to merit such a convoluted system of categorisation. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
05:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply I'm creating nothing. These categories exist; my proposal is to change the name to reflect what they are - buildings as opposed to congregations.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply I've changed my 'comment' to 'oppose'. You've ignored the heart of the matter I was querying: that of there being a distinction between heritage/national trust and de-consecrated architectural examples, and that of active congregational/religious centres. As an atheist, I have no personal stake in such considerations, but there is a prominent distinction which reflects the reality of religious worship. Conflating the two is ignoring the principle rationale behind their existence where they are still actively in use: that is, they're not simply architectural features. An active synagogue is not just an architectural style; an active mosque is not just an architectural building; an actively used Buddhist temple is not just an architectural building; etc. I believe Od Mishehu's proposal to be a far more sensible method of cleaning up the category tree. While I understand that you're trying to disambiguate 'religious denomination' from architecture, I don't consider this to be the way to do it. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- a church is both a building and the community that worships in it. We need to be wary of limiting "church" to a building, which is a misconception of unbelievers.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: I agree with this statement, but it raises the much bigger question of why churches are primarily given locational and place categories and not personal ones. I find most church articles to be very focused on the place rather than the people and its undertakings (
one random example). I think this reveals a great deal about Wikipedia's focus and prejudices. Not least, the notability criteria easily permit a building-based article, yet prove a barrier to a congregation-specific article (e.g.
Congregation of Dundee Parish Church (St Mary's)) when arguably the latter topic is as, if not more important. We're terrible at reflecting local communities, while at the same time allow space for many
individual people of little note. I think Wikipedia is being both informed by and engendering the atomisation of society – the ultimate irony for a community-led project (though ego does mean we find
space for ourselves!).
SFB14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support but agree with Od Mishehu that this debate needs to take place at a higher level when the same problem applies to national level categories. The national level ones have even greater impetus as the confusion with church bodies applies more often to national, rather than city level categories.
SFB14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Further comment -- My previous comment resulted from us having two trees, one for church buildings and the other for church communities (congregations). In some cases, a notable congregation will be meeting in a NN building; in others, vice versa; in others, again, both will be notable. At one point, some years ago, a lot of the articles were (rather ridiculously) expressed as congregations, meaning that in some places there were "congregations" that had existed for 800 years. There may have been a congregation for 800 years, but the people constituting it had changed many times over. It is probably usually impractical to distinguish the building from the people. My preference would be to move all church buildings articles and all congregations articles into a single churches tree. Churches in foo could be parented both to "buildings and structures in foo" and also to a people-related one, perhaps "organisations in foo". As long as inclusion does not raise a POV-issue, there is no harm in categories being a little fuzzy in their scope, and that is what I would advocate. I think the conclusion of this argument is this Keep and alter church buildings and church congregation trees to match.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:25, 5 April 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.
Category:Caldecott Medal winning works
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.
Comment We should probably only categorize the books that win the award. The nature of this award is that it is not always clear if the author or illustrator is the primary winner when they are not the same person. It is defining for the books, but not enough so for the people to be defining. I also do not think the non-winners are a defining group.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:06, 11 April 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.
Category:IP addresses used for vandalism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. The deletion proposal misrepresents DENY by failing to recognise the use this category has for the administration of vandals. In my opinion its main usefulness is in helping to tag vandals listed at WP:AIV. This doesn't require a category, and can be performed more objectively by a bot. There is no recognition or notoriety to DENY; this category should be deleted because it is not useful. --
zzuuzz(talk)04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - If this category was actually useful, it would make sense to keep it. However, the IP's block log is a better way of getting this information in a reliable manner (there's nothing to preent an IP user from categorizing a different IP's talk page); however, since it isn't - it should be deleted.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu04:32, 2 April 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.
Category:Overpopulated stub categories
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: Only editors (not readers) should be looking for stubs and for editors that a stub category is large shouldn't be a problem because a smaller group of stubs can be selected using category interesection. For example
Category:UK MP for England stubs currently contains over 1000 pages. An editor looking for stubs that they can expand (question: is that something that editors actually do?) might only be interested in politicians from a particular party and/or politicians active in a particular century. Category intersection (example query
[1]) provides a way to do that without the overhead involved in maintaining an intricate structure of stub categories (in parallel to the structure of article categories) - and avoids having to make a choice between diffusing the large stub category by party, by century or both. Category intersection isn't perfect - it's done by off-wiki tools that are occasionally unavailable, but should work well for this.
One way to make the use of category intersection easier is shown at
Category:Whig (British political party) MPs - clicking on the "Stubs only" link brings up a list of Whig MP stubs. Note: There are also talk page (wikiproject-based) categories for stub articles, but they may use a different definition of a stub. DexDor(talk)12:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The size of any given stub category isn't the category system's concern. Editors, as a rule, do not choose stub articles to expand on the basis of "this is a large stub category, so I should whittle it down even though I really know nothing about the topic" — what governs whether somebody contributes to expanding a stub or not is personal familiarity with the subject area and its array of sourcing options. So the size of the stub category isn't a helpful or useful or collaboration-based criterion to single out as a thing in its own right, because that's not the basis on which people make their editing choices.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nomination is based on the premise that readers will encounter this category. That should not happen; it's a maintenance category, and as such it should be tagged as a {{Hidden category}}.
Keep We're frequently considering ways of reducing the size of sub categories, and discuss the best way of refining the existing stub cats; the
proposals for March 2015 provide plenty of examples of how they are chosen. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:26, 30 March 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.
Category:Historical Armenia
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:Churches of Ani
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:Categories lacking a description
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: Thousands of categories don't have a description and in most cases that isn't really a problem as the category name and its parent categories are sufficient to define the scope of the category. If clarification of the category's scope is needed then relevant places to ask would be the category's talk page and the relevant wikiproject etc. It's very unlikely that an editor with knowledge of the relevant subject area would come across it in this maintenance category. Of the two categories currently in this category
one has been there for over 2 years and
the other was placed there by its creator(!). DexDor(talk)08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as there is apparently no active use of this category. It would be okay though if at some point of time it would be recreated and started to become actively used.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While category descriptions are certainly helpful if they're present, there has never been any policy requirement that they must be present on all categories — so their absence is not a maintenance problem as such.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:47, 29 March 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.
Category:Armenian history
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 to clarify the scope of the category. The current name is ambiguous because you might think that it is about the history of Armenia as a country.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge - not because it is ambiguous, but because it is a useless duplicate. The boundaries of Armenia and of where Armenians have resided have varied over time. Categories are sometimes better when they are allowed to be slightly fuzzy in their scope.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:54, 1 April 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.
Expeditions by country of origin
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge because I've made sure that all articles are in a "type of expedition" category (in the Expeditions tree) and also are in a "year in country" category (in the History of country tree).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:39, 29 March 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.
Category:Expeditions from Monaco
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:Expeditions from Turkey
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.
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: merge It doesn't make sense to create an isolated year category while the whole medieval history of Armenia is categorized by century. (Note: after this merge a number of intermediate categories will become empty and can be deleted.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:22, 29 March 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.
Category:1062 establishments in Armenia
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: merge It doesn't make sense to create an isolated year category while the whole medieval history of Armenia is categorized by century. (Note: after this merge a number of intermediate categories will become empty and can be deleted.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Support -- Little prospect of it getting enough siblings to be worthwhile. I have my doubts on whehter Armenia is in Europe, but that is perhaps my POV: if the precedent is that it is in both Europe and Asia we need both targets.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:43, 1 April 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.
Category:User sleep
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:Musical performers
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: Subcategory of
Category:Musicians, with dubious value — the difference between a "musician" and a "musical performer" would be, er, what exactly? Given what's actually categorized in here, I can marginally see what the creator was trying to get at (subcats
Category:Artistic and performing robots and
Category:One-man bands, four articles about types of musicians). But naming it this way, they missed — I just had to remove several individual people, on whom it was serving no substantive purpose except as a redundantly redundant repetition of other
Category:Musicians subcategories that they were already in. Upmerge to
Category:Musicians (or rename if somebody can figure out a clearer and less ambiguous way to name a "much better distinguished from its parent" subcategory for one-man bands and dancing glee club robots and troubadours and virtuosi.)
Bearcat (
talk)
20:54, 29 March 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.
Category:Wikipedia classification templates
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 (as categ creator). "Classification" in this case means
Wikipedia:Classification: "A Classification is used on category pages to show the hierarchy of the category".
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:Pelvic inflamatory disease
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: In theory this could be a valid category, but very few (if any) of the articles that have been placed in the category (
examples) actually belong in it. DexDor(talk)18:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - PID remains one of the most preventable and curable diseases worldwide and the reason that this is not generally known is precisely because all of the article/topics that have been placed in the category are interrelated according to the most recent and reliable medical sources. There are 340 million 'new' cases worldwide. Millions of others have the disease and don't know it. To adequately provide information that ties all these topics together and the role that they play in the diagnosis, epidemiology, the cure, prevention, and the treatment a category is appropriate. Respectfully,
Many of the articles that you put into the category (
someexamples) don't even mention PID so it can hardly be a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of those topics! "that this is not generally known is precisely because all of the article/topics that have been placed in the category are interrelated" doesn't make any sense. DexDor(talk)20:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I think
Oculi meant a topic category; a topic category can have an eponymous article (same name as category), but a set category (with a plural title) wouldn't normally have an eponymous article. DexDor(talk)11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Inflammation is not the same thing as an infection, which is PID. It would be misleading to include any of the articles listed below in Inflammatory diseases of female pelvic organs because inflammation is simply a symptom of a bigger problem. Inflammation can be caused by PID, but it can also be caused by other diseases.Bfpage |
leave a message10:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Several responses: 1) Sub-category
N73.9, which is the default ICD-10 code for Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, has an inclusion term saying that the concept includes infection or inflammation; 2) See
this page for what the World Health Organization defines as Inflammatory diseases of the female pelvic organs. You will notice that PID is a subset of this set of disease concepts; 3) If you read my comment above carefully you will see that I don't wish to include any of the articles you have listed below into the already existing category.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:46, 24 April 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.
Category:Churches in Ukraine
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.
CommentOppose: I'm completely perplexed as to how these are going to improve the categories. Various forms of buildings following various styles adhering to historical denominational architectural styles are listed in the existing categories. Some of them are still being used for active practice, others are heritage sites. The only method by which changing the nomenclature would make sense is to, then, create sub-cats for those still used actively by worshippers/adherents by any given denomination. While I can understand that you're attempting to create categories outside of the initial religious functions of these buildings, there are by no means enough examples to merit such a convoluted system of categorisation. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
05:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply I'm creating nothing. These categories exist; my proposal is to change the name to reflect what they are - buildings as opposed to congregations.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply I've changed my 'comment' to 'oppose'. You've ignored the heart of the matter I was querying: that of there being a distinction between heritage/national trust and de-consecrated architectural examples, and that of active congregational/religious centres. As an atheist, I have no personal stake in such considerations, but there is a prominent distinction which reflects the reality of religious worship. Conflating the two is ignoring the principle rationale behind their existence where they are still actively in use: that is, they're not simply architectural features. An active synagogue is not just an architectural style; an active mosque is not just an architectural building; an actively used Buddhist temple is not just an architectural building; etc. I believe Od Mishehu's proposal to be a far more sensible method of cleaning up the category tree. While I understand that you're trying to disambiguate 'religious denomination' from architecture, I don't consider this to be the way to do it. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- a church is both a building and the community that worships in it. We need to be wary of limiting "church" to a building, which is a misconception of unbelievers.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: I agree with this statement, but it raises the much bigger question of why churches are primarily given locational and place categories and not personal ones. I find most church articles to be very focused on the place rather than the people and its undertakings (
one random example). I think this reveals a great deal about Wikipedia's focus and prejudices. Not least, the notability criteria easily permit a building-based article, yet prove a barrier to a congregation-specific article (e.g.
Congregation of Dundee Parish Church (St Mary's)) when arguably the latter topic is as, if not more important. We're terrible at reflecting local communities, while at the same time allow space for many
individual people of little note. I think Wikipedia is being both informed by and engendering the atomisation of society – the ultimate irony for a community-led project (though ego does mean we find
space for ourselves!).
SFB14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support but agree with Od Mishehu that this debate needs to take place at a higher level when the same problem applies to national level categories. The national level ones have even greater impetus as the confusion with church bodies applies more often to national, rather than city level categories.
SFB14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Further comment -- My previous comment resulted from us having two trees, one for church buildings and the other for church communities (congregations). In some cases, a notable congregation will be meeting in a NN building; in others, vice versa; in others, again, both will be notable. At one point, some years ago, a lot of the articles were (rather ridiculously) expressed as congregations, meaning that in some places there were "congregations" that had existed for 800 years. There may have been a congregation for 800 years, but the people constituting it had changed many times over. It is probably usually impractical to distinguish the building from the people. My preference would be to move all church buildings articles and all congregations articles into a single churches tree. Churches in foo could be parented both to "buildings and structures in foo" and also to a people-related one, perhaps "organisations in foo". As long as inclusion does not raise a POV-issue, there is no harm in categories being a little fuzzy in their scope, and that is what I would advocate. I think the conclusion of this argument is this Keep and alter church buildings and church congregation trees to match.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:25, 5 April 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.
Category:Caldecott Medal winning works
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.
Comment We should probably only categorize the books that win the award. The nature of this award is that it is not always clear if the author or illustrator is the primary winner when they are not the same person. It is defining for the books, but not enough so for the people to be defining. I also do not think the non-winners are a defining group.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:06, 11 April 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.
Category:IP addresses used for vandalism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. The deletion proposal misrepresents DENY by failing to recognise the use this category has for the administration of vandals. In my opinion its main usefulness is in helping to tag vandals listed at WP:AIV. This doesn't require a category, and can be performed more objectively by a bot. There is no recognition or notoriety to DENY; this category should be deleted because it is not useful. --
zzuuzz(talk)04:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - If this category was actually useful, it would make sense to keep it. However, the IP's block log is a better way of getting this information in a reliable manner (there's nothing to preent an IP user from categorizing a different IP's talk page); however, since it isn't - it should be deleted.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu04:32, 2 April 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.
Category:Overpopulated stub categories
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: Only editors (not readers) should be looking for stubs and for editors that a stub category is large shouldn't be a problem because a smaller group of stubs can be selected using category interesection. For example
Category:UK MP for England stubs currently contains over 1000 pages. An editor looking for stubs that they can expand (question: is that something that editors actually do?) might only be interested in politicians from a particular party and/or politicians active in a particular century. Category intersection (example query
[1]) provides a way to do that without the overhead involved in maintaining an intricate structure of stub categories (in parallel to the structure of article categories) - and avoids having to make a choice between diffusing the large stub category by party, by century or both. Category intersection isn't perfect - it's done by off-wiki tools that are occasionally unavailable, but should work well for this.
One way to make the use of category intersection easier is shown at
Category:Whig (British political party) MPs - clicking on the "Stubs only" link brings up a list of Whig MP stubs. Note: There are also talk page (wikiproject-based) categories for stub articles, but they may use a different definition of a stub. DexDor(talk)12:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The size of any given stub category isn't the category system's concern. Editors, as a rule, do not choose stub articles to expand on the basis of "this is a large stub category, so I should whittle it down even though I really know nothing about the topic" — what governs whether somebody contributes to expanding a stub or not is personal familiarity with the subject area and its array of sourcing options. So the size of the stub category isn't a helpful or useful or collaboration-based criterion to single out as a thing in its own right, because that's not the basis on which people make their editing choices.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The nomination is based on the premise that readers will encounter this category. That should not happen; it's a maintenance category, and as such it should be tagged as a {{Hidden category}}.
Keep We're frequently considering ways of reducing the size of sub categories, and discuss the best way of refining the existing stub cats; the
proposals for March 2015 provide plenty of examples of how they are chosen. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:26, 30 March 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.
Category:Historical Armenia
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:Churches of Ani
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:Categories lacking a description
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: Thousands of categories don't have a description and in most cases that isn't really a problem as the category name and its parent categories are sufficient to define the scope of the category. If clarification of the category's scope is needed then relevant places to ask would be the category's talk page and the relevant wikiproject etc. It's very unlikely that an editor with knowledge of the relevant subject area would come across it in this maintenance category. Of the two categories currently in this category
one has been there for over 2 years and
the other was placed there by its creator(!). DexDor(talk)08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Support as there is apparently no active use of this category. It would be okay though if at some point of time it would be recreated and started to become actively used.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While category descriptions are certainly helpful if they're present, there has never been any policy requirement that they must be present on all categories — so their absence is not a maintenance problem as such.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:47, 29 March 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.
Category:Armenian history
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 to clarify the scope of the category. The current name is ambiguous because you might think that it is about the history of Armenia as a country.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge - not because it is ambiguous, but because it is a useless duplicate. The boundaries of Armenia and of where Armenians have resided have varied over time. Categories are sometimes better when they are allowed to be slightly fuzzy in their scope.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:54, 1 April 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.
Expeditions by country of origin
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 per
WP:SMALLCAT. No need to upmerge because I've made sure that all articles are in a "type of expedition" category (in the Expeditions tree) and also are in a "year in country" category (in the History of country tree).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:39, 29 March 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.
Category:Expeditions from Monaco
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:Expeditions from Turkey
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.