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 will never have more than six entries so it has
WP:SMALLCAT problems. The main problem is
WP:CATDEF as the use in the film is not a defining characteristic of the compositions themselves. Please don't get me wrong this film is a favorite of mine. I think it merits a mention in each of the six articles as it is here
Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune#Film, but a category on top of that is IMO overkill.
MarnetteD|
Talk23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This is one of my favorite films, and a lot could be written about its segments. But this is about the music of the segments, not the film itself.
Dimadick (
talk)
05:36, 2 May 2019 (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:Places related to the Holy Spirit in religious 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: The edit history of this page shows disagreement about whether it is specifically for the Christian understanding of the
Holy Spirit. At present it contains 4 entries:
Baptism of Jesus (an event, not a place);
Cenacle (the "Upper Room"), fair enough;
Mount Horeb and
Biblical Mount Sinai, 2 articles for the same Biblical place, related to
YHWH but not specifically the Holy Spirit. Other places might be suggested by pages such as
Baptism with the Holy Spirit, e.g.
Ephesus (Biblical) and
Azusa Street (modern church history). However, I can't think of a way that this category could be helpful to anyone, or made so. It's only
WP:DEFINING for the locations of the Cenacle and of Jesus' baptism, among the current entries, but the identification of those locations is unclear. –
FayenaticLondon22:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Not support but agree with concept Places relevant to the Holy Spirit in religious history, because the Holy Spirit did not have any relatives who were spirits of places or the
animistic containments within objects within those afore-mentioned places..
Sederecarinae (
talk)
22:45, 26 April 2019 (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:Thittuvilai
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:Anti-abortion violence in the United States
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.
Totally oppose - This is a completely non-sensical and unnecessary proposal. There is no reason to rename and scrap a perfectly fine category. All that's needed is to create the desired category, which I will in fact do right now.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
12:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the move makes it seem as if the whole American anti-abortion movement is violent, while in fact it is a minority of the wider movement that practices violence. The category is sufficently populated and significant, no reason for renaming or deletion.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
16:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Retain both categories oppose, Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States, is 1) violence 2) anti-aborthion 3) United States, Category:United States anti-abortion movement is a whole concept of a group activity with he express purpose of anti-abortion campaigning and activities. They are two different categories, both a
notable, although perhaps the amount of violence caused by anti-abortion campaign might not be included as content in a very numerous quantity of articles.
Sederecarinae (
talk)
22:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People who have been pied
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category does not seem encyclopedic. The list upon which it is based (
List of people who have been pied) is poorly sourced, tagged since 2018, with the first item for
Donna Air being based on a YouTube video that is no longer available. It might be acceptable to retain this category if it was not willy-nilly added to biographies of people for trivial and insignificant events that are just barely cover in
WP:RS. For all of the five individuals I checked, the event of "being pied" is not even listed in their articles--indicating how non-notable the event is. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I plead for impunity on this issue, don't punish a lame horse with an old oak branch - there are millions of articles, and the encyclopedia must be almost filled to the brim with irrelevant and somewhat clownishly silly topics existing for the whim and delectation of the casually inclined reader. This is the new world of encyclopedia , the concept of an updated modern variation on the traditional academically inclined encyclopedia of old should be easily acceptable if a for a moment interested editors notice the non-traditional subject(s) that already exist as articles within this encyclopedia, as is evidenced by the existence of
pied individual listings. To categorize allows people to view the list of categorized articles from the individual members listed, which is useful.
Sederecarinae (
talk)
23:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what that idiom means, but "keep because it's interesting" seems like an argument for keeping the list (which we are) but not necessarily the category (because trivial categories are considered clutter in article footers). --
Beland (
talk)
20:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We already have a list, which is able to add detail of time place and circumstances. However, it needs a fuller explanation that this has nothing to do with piebald horses or pied wagtails, but being attached with a pie. Even so, it is fairly trivial.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:59, 28 April 2019 (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.
Support though "they are generally federally funded major museums in national capitals" is not really true (and most counties aren't "federal" at all in the US sense). In most countries it means museums funded and ultimately run by branches of the national government - in France and Italy for example. Especially in Italy they are all over the country. Also in the UK, although the term is not used so much there. Not some random marketing boast anyway.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Delete While Congress has specifically designated around 20 museums as National Museums (in addition to the Smithsonian I think), the unofficial private use of the term makes the use of it fairly meaningless for categorization here. No reason to separate these from other museums across the states.
Reywas92Talk19:38, 28 April 2019 (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: This will never have more than six entries so it has
WP:SMALLCAT problems. The main problem is
WP:CATDEF as the use in the film is not a defining characteristic of the compositions themselves. Please don't get me wrong this film is a favorite of mine. I think it merits a mention in each of the six articles as it is here
Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune#Film, but a category on top of that is IMO overkill.
MarnetteD|
Talk23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete This is one of my favorite films, and a lot could be written about its segments. But this is about the music of the segments, not the film itself.
Dimadick (
talk)
05:36, 2 May 2019 (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:Places related to the Holy Spirit in religious 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: The edit history of this page shows disagreement about whether it is specifically for the Christian understanding of the
Holy Spirit. At present it contains 4 entries:
Baptism of Jesus (an event, not a place);
Cenacle (the "Upper Room"), fair enough;
Mount Horeb and
Biblical Mount Sinai, 2 articles for the same Biblical place, related to
YHWH but not specifically the Holy Spirit. Other places might be suggested by pages such as
Baptism with the Holy Spirit, e.g.
Ephesus (Biblical) and
Azusa Street (modern church history). However, I can't think of a way that this category could be helpful to anyone, or made so. It's only
WP:DEFINING for the locations of the Cenacle and of Jesus' baptism, among the current entries, but the identification of those locations is unclear. –
FayenaticLondon22:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Not support but agree with concept Places relevant to the Holy Spirit in religious history, because the Holy Spirit did not have any relatives who were spirits of places or the
animistic containments within objects within those afore-mentioned places..
Sederecarinae (
talk)
22:45, 26 April 2019 (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:Thittuvilai
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:Anti-abortion violence in the United States
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.
Totally oppose - This is a completely non-sensical and unnecessary proposal. There is no reason to rename and scrap a perfectly fine category. All that's needed is to create the desired category, which I will in fact do right now.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
12:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the move makes it seem as if the whole American anti-abortion movement is violent, while in fact it is a minority of the wider movement that practices violence. The category is sufficently populated and significant, no reason for renaming or deletion.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
16:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Retain both categories oppose, Category:Anti-abortion violence in the United States, is 1) violence 2) anti-aborthion 3) United States, Category:United States anti-abortion movement is a whole concept of a group activity with he express purpose of anti-abortion campaigning and activities. They are two different categories, both a
notable, although perhaps the amount of violence caused by anti-abortion campaign might not be included as content in a very numerous quantity of articles.
Sederecarinae (
talk)
22:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People who have been pied
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category does not seem encyclopedic. The list upon which it is based (
List of people who have been pied) is poorly sourced, tagged since 2018, with the first item for
Donna Air being based on a YouTube video that is no longer available. It might be acceptable to retain this category if it was not willy-nilly added to biographies of people for trivial and insignificant events that are just barely cover in
WP:RS. For all of the five individuals I checked, the event of "being pied" is not even listed in their articles--indicating how non-notable the event is. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep I plead for impunity on this issue, don't punish a lame horse with an old oak branch - there are millions of articles, and the encyclopedia must be almost filled to the brim with irrelevant and somewhat clownishly silly topics existing for the whim and delectation of the casually inclined reader. This is the new world of encyclopedia , the concept of an updated modern variation on the traditional academically inclined encyclopedia of old should be easily acceptable if a for a moment interested editors notice the non-traditional subject(s) that already exist as articles within this encyclopedia, as is evidenced by the existence of
pied individual listings. To categorize allows people to view the list of categorized articles from the individual members listed, which is useful.
Sederecarinae (
talk)
23:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what that idiom means, but "keep because it's interesting" seems like an argument for keeping the list (which we are) but not necessarily the category (because trivial categories are considered clutter in article footers). --
Beland (
talk)
20:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We already have a list, which is able to add detail of time place and circumstances. However, it needs a fuller explanation that this has nothing to do with piebald horses or pied wagtails, but being attached with a pie. Even so, it is fairly trivial.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:59, 28 April 2019 (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.
Support though "they are generally federally funded major museums in national capitals" is not really true (and most counties aren't "federal" at all in the US sense). In most countries it means museums funded and ultimately run by branches of the national government - in France and Italy for example. Especially in Italy they are all over the country. Also in the UK, although the term is not used so much there. Not some random marketing boast anyway.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Delete While Congress has specifically designated around 20 museums as National Museums (in addition to the Smithsonian I think), the unofficial private use of the term makes the use of it fairly meaningless for categorization here. No reason to separate these from other museums across the states.
Reywas92Talk19:38, 28 April 2019 (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.