Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29

Category:Documentary films about music

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about music to Category:Documentary films about music and musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent category Category:Films about music and musicians. Articles in this category are a mix of biographical articles about individual musicians as well as articles about music. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:58, 29 April 2011 (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.

Spanish Latter Day Saints

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: Keep. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Well it is glad to see somepeople can discuss something without being rude. It is not my fault that Spainard redirects in a way that it causes one to think they atre spelling Spaniard correctly. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (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.

Midland Lutheran College

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:39, 7 May 2011 (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:Chemical substances

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: Keep. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Chemical compounds to Category:Chemical substances
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much the same thing. All of each category could go into the other I think. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I would probably oppose both directions for a merge but merging to chemical compounds is particularly absurd. For an immediate counter-example, consider chemical elements. Pichpich ( talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    Well, Category:chemical elements is good as a sub-category, while that compounds and substances are pretty much the same thing, like water is a chemical compound and a chemical substance. (Reversed merging) ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Ebe, you shouldn't change the nom as you did here without making it a little clearer that you've switched things. Now that Pichpich has posted a comment, it's going to cause confusion, I think. Using strike-through might be a clearer way to do it... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No, a chemical element is a chemical substance, but is not a chemical compound. Further, this category currently contains many articles and subcategories in their relation to the topic of Chemical Substances in general, such as terms about molecules, not specific to chemical compounds. — Centrx→ talk • 03:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American professional bodies

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:American professional bodies to Category:Professional associations based in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Matching the title of the parent Category:Professional associations by country, as well as the "based in" model of Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States. If this is successful, I'll nominate all the subcategories of Category:Professional associations by country.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support. As I see it, this will solve two problems: (1) The naming scheme will work also for countries for which the corresponding attribute is less easily recognisable or otherwise problematic, e.g. Luxembourgian/Luxembourgish, or distinguishing Niger and Nigeria. (2) For some reason this category is on my watchlist. When I saw it there, I thought: What's that supposed to be? A category for American prostitutes? Hans Adler 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support. This should also be a sub-cat of Category:Organizations based in the United States. This part of the categorty tree it belongs in makes it very clear that that is the form that should be used here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename top category to Category:National professional bodies Keep other entries as they are. While the parent category is 'Professional associations by country' 20 of 21 categories below are 'Fooian professional bodies'. In this instance it is the top category that is out of step. There is one exception in the national categories, 'Professional associations in Australia ' which should be renamed 'Australian professional bodies'.
There is also a semantic issue why we should avoid having these bodies described as '... based in Foo'. Many of the major bodies are international, and so have branches based in other countries. e.g. A US example (ASCE has 45% of its members in 160 other countries) Another example. Maintaining the status quo therefore avoids stumbling into this restrictive naming issue. Ephebi ( talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support – we have for some time been moving away from 'Fooian' for such categories. Occuli ( talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You will note that most of the organisations in the category (and its large sub-categories) call themselves 'American institute of xyz' (when they do identify themselves with a country.) So I am not clear who you are referring to as 'we' in this instance, as WP reflects reality, and does not define it. Ephebi ( talk) 09:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ephebi's listed facts about ASCE explains why we should change this name. If 45% of the ASCE's membership is in other countries, than calling the organization "American" is open to debate. However saying the organization is "based" in the United States is a clearly definable fact on the strength of where its headquarters are and similar indicators. An organization is almost always based in only one country, and if it really is based in multiple countries, than this means it has a central organizational strucuture in multiple places. If we keep the current names what is to prevent people from putting the ASCE in all 160 countries that its has membership in? This is the very reason oompanies and other, religions and other organizations as in "based in" categories and not in "Fooian" categories. This name change is vital to fight category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Using the term 'based in Foo' doesn't resolve that semantic problem that you described. You can see from the links I provided that an organisation can have bases in many countries. A more precise term like '... Headquartered in Foo' or '...Run from Foo' would solve that problem, but those terms are not being proposed. But by trying to finesse this semantic argument so far I fear you just end up chasing your tail and will create other problems. Ephebi ( talk) 09:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support - excellent nomination. Thank for putting this one up. Neutrality talk 04:44, 5 May 2011 (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:Equality

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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Equality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Equality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; a category with only one article other than its parent cat is, to all intents and purposes, not being used, and articles that could theoretically go here are probably covered by other existing categories (for example, Category:Egalitarianism, Category:Equality rights, Category:Inequality). Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; I created the Equality category in the consideration of its mathematical sense. I think it should be kept. I'm sure there are many articles out there pending inclusion within this category. (see below) -- Faus ( talk) 23:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or rename. If there are sufficient articles located before the close of discussion that fit the creator's stated purpose of categorizing articles that relate to Equality (mathematics) then rename to Category:Equality (mathematics). Otherwise delete as being small, ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. I see one article, Testimony of equality, has already been added to the category despite its having nothing to do with math, showing the ambiguous nature of the category as named. Harley Hudson ( talk) 03:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I created the "Equality (Concept)" category instead. -- Faus ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Two comments. First that is not a correct name, it should be Category:Equality (concept). Second unless there are going to be a bunch more entries, this new category is likely to be deleted as OC small. It is better to wait for the discussion to play out before making more changes. I'll probably add the new category to this discussion since it has the same issues as the category currently being discussed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The only categories under discussion are "Equality" and "Equality (Concept)". I vote we delete both because they are too small. Even Category:Equality (Concept) has not convinced me that it is about math. Equality (Concept) still shouts " Martin Luther King or Frederick Douglass could be connected with this category" to me. If you want it to be about math, than say math/mathematics/something like that. However with two articles it makes no sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both; excessively vague. Neutrality talk 04:43, 5 May 2011 (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:Quakerism

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Quakerism to Category:Religious Society of Friends
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Otherwise, split Religious Society of Friends into an article about the organizations and Quakerism into an article about the beliefs and practices. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Split the article 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Since there is not a Religious Society of Friends, but multiple groups within Quakerism, some of which broke 200 years ago or more, splitting the article makes sense. Exactly how to split it I am not sure, but it needs to be split, not the category renamed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 3 May 2011 (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.

Quakers by century

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: Delete and recategorize per Christian scheme. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Quakers who died between 1700 and 1799 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Quakers who died between 1800 and 1899 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Quakers who died before 1700 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete these and recategorize the articles by the scheme at Category:Christians by century. Rather than Category:Quakers who died between X and Y, they should be Category:16th-century Quakers, Category:17th-century Quakers, etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Just rename. Not delete and re-categorize. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 19:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The schema of categorizing people by group by when died could create unlimited numbers of categories. This is one of those cases where the term "here lies madness' comes to mind. People are generally classifed not by when they died but by century with potentially putting the same person in two centuries. Do we have Category:20th-century Roman Catholics? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, we do, but there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics and only about 350,000 Quakers. The only Protestant denominations for which there are 18th century people categories are Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists and Anglicans. I am not convinced that there are enough Quakers to justify the division of them by century. Anyway these categories are so misnamed that people would have to be severly realigned for them to be accuare. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • A category has to do more than just subdivide another category to be useful and appropriate; the way in which it subdivides must be both useful, not a hindrance to navigation, and not unnecessarily proliferate categories if every possible permutation is created. Category:Quakers by nationality already subdivides Category:Quakers, and I see the largest by nationality grouping only has 315 articles, hardly a cumbersome number to deal with (however one deals with a category's entire contents all at once) considering that it fits on two screens. So we are to categorize that someone was a Quaker both by their nationality, and by the centur[y/ies] in which they lived?

    The rename is an improvement, at least, and given that there is a well-established denominational subcategory structure of Christians by century, doing it here as well isn't creating a new problem. postdlf ( talk) 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

True This scheme also subdivides Category:Christians by century. There are only a handful of schemes that are likely to subdivide broad categories of human beings and "[Nationality] X" and "X by century" are by far the two most common. (For religious categories, you could also have "Converts to X", "X clergy", "X martyrs", etc.) I don't know of anyone proposing a double intersection of nationality and century ( Category:17th-century English Quakers) and that would be unnecessarily arcane. As it stands, Quakers by century and nationality (in addition to Category:Converts to Quakerism and other appropriate subcats.) are legitimate and useful schemes for unpacking what would otherwise be large categories. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:34, 1 May 2011 (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:Michael (Archangel)

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: Keep, but rename to Michael (archangel). Dana boomer ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Michael (Archangel) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one file. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:58, 29 April 2011 (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:Christian Pneumatology

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Christian Pneumatology to Category:Pneumatology
Nominator's rationale: This field is only relevant to Christianity, so the adjective is redundant. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the article certainly doesn't seem to confine itself to Christianity, though that could be the fault of a badly written intro. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:06, 30 April 2011 (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:Prisoners rescued by Jimmy Carter

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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Prisoners rescued by Jimmy Carter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unless Carter is going to be travelling around the world Rambo-style rescuing unfortunate Americans caught in places they were stupid being in in the first place, this category is likely not going to grow in size past the single person whom he didn't so much rescue, but more like acted as a parent who had to go pick up their teenage son from a police station in Tijuana who got arrested after a wild night in the bars, complete with freaky, yet cheap, sex with local whores. You get the point :) Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:32, 29 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_29&oldid=1074806915"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29

Category:Documentary films about music

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about music to Category:Documentary films about music and musicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent category Category:Films about music and musicians. Articles in this category are a mix of biographical articles about individual musicians as well as articles about music. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:58, 29 April 2011 (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.

Spanish Latter Day Saints

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: Keep. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Well it is glad to see somepeople can discuss something without being rude. It is not my fault that Spainard redirects in a way that it causes one to think they atre spelling Spaniard correctly. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (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.

Midland Lutheran College

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:39, 7 May 2011 (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:Chemical substances

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: Keep. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Chemical compounds to Category:Chemical substances
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much the same thing. All of each category could go into the other I think. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I would probably oppose both directions for a merge but merging to chemical compounds is particularly absurd. For an immediate counter-example, consider chemical elements. Pichpich ( talk) 20:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    Well, Category:chemical elements is good as a sub-category, while that compounds and substances are pretty much the same thing, like water is a chemical compound and a chemical substance. (Reversed merging) ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Ebe, you shouldn't change the nom as you did here without making it a little clearer that you've switched things. Now that Pichpich has posted a comment, it's going to cause confusion, I think. Using strike-through might be a clearer way to do it... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • No, a chemical element is a chemical substance, but is not a chemical compound. Further, this category currently contains many articles and subcategories in their relation to the topic of Chemical Substances in general, such as terms about molecules, not specific to chemical compounds. — Centrx→ talk • 03:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American professional bodies

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:American professional bodies to Category:Professional associations based in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Matching the title of the parent Category:Professional associations by country, as well as the "based in" model of Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States. If this is successful, I'll nominate all the subcategories of Category:Professional associations by country.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 15:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support. As I see it, this will solve two problems: (1) The naming scheme will work also for countries for which the corresponding attribute is less easily recognisable or otherwise problematic, e.g. Luxembourgian/Luxembourgish, or distinguishing Niger and Nigeria. (2) For some reason this category is on my watchlist. When I saw it there, I thought: What's that supposed to be? A category for American prostitutes? Hans Adler 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support. This should also be a sub-cat of Category:Organizations based in the United States. This part of the categorty tree it belongs in makes it very clear that that is the form that should be used here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Rename top category to Category:National professional bodies Keep other entries as they are. While the parent category is 'Professional associations by country' 20 of 21 categories below are 'Fooian professional bodies'. In this instance it is the top category that is out of step. There is one exception in the national categories, 'Professional associations in Australia ' which should be renamed 'Australian professional bodies'.
There is also a semantic issue why we should avoid having these bodies described as '... based in Foo'. Many of the major bodies are international, and so have branches based in other countries. e.g. A US example (ASCE has 45% of its members in 160 other countries) Another example. Maintaining the status quo therefore avoids stumbling into this restrictive naming issue. Ephebi ( talk) 23:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support – we have for some time been moving away from 'Fooian' for such categories. Occuli ( talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You will note that most of the organisations in the category (and its large sub-categories) call themselves 'American institute of xyz' (when they do identify themselves with a country.) So I am not clear who you are referring to as 'we' in this instance, as WP reflects reality, and does not define it. Ephebi ( talk) 09:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ephebi's listed facts about ASCE explains why we should change this name. If 45% of the ASCE's membership is in other countries, than calling the organization "American" is open to debate. However saying the organization is "based" in the United States is a clearly definable fact on the strength of where its headquarters are and similar indicators. An organization is almost always based in only one country, and if it really is based in multiple countries, than this means it has a central organizational strucuture in multiple places. If we keep the current names what is to prevent people from putting the ASCE in all 160 countries that its has membership in? This is the very reason oompanies and other, religions and other organizations as in "based in" categories and not in "Fooian" categories. This name change is vital to fight category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Using the term 'based in Foo' doesn't resolve that semantic problem that you described. You can see from the links I provided that an organisation can have bases in many countries. A more precise term like '... Headquartered in Foo' or '...Run from Foo' would solve that problem, but those terms are not being proposed. But by trying to finesse this semantic argument so far I fear you just end up chasing your tail and will create other problems. Ephebi ( talk) 09:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Support - excellent nomination. Thank for putting this one up. Neutrality talk 04:44, 5 May 2011 (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:Equality

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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Equality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Equality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) added Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; a category with only one article other than its parent cat is, to all intents and purposes, not being used, and articles that could theoretically go here are probably covered by other existing categories (for example, Category:Egalitarianism, Category:Equality rights, Category:Inequality). Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; I created the Equality category in the consideration of its mathematical sense. I think it should be kept. I'm sure there are many articles out there pending inclusion within this category. (see below) -- Faus ( talk) 23:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or rename. If there are sufficient articles located before the close of discussion that fit the creator's stated purpose of categorizing articles that relate to Equality (mathematics) then rename to Category:Equality (mathematics). Otherwise delete as being small, ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. I see one article, Testimony of equality, has already been added to the category despite its having nothing to do with math, showing the ambiguous nature of the category as named. Harley Hudson ( talk) 03:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I created the "Equality (Concept)" category instead. -- Faus ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Two comments. First that is not a correct name, it should be Category:Equality (concept). Second unless there are going to be a bunch more entries, this new category is likely to be deleted as OC small. It is better to wait for the discussion to play out before making more changes. I'll probably add the new category to this discussion since it has the same issues as the category currently being discussed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The only categories under discussion are "Equality" and "Equality (Concept)". I vote we delete both because they are too small. Even Category:Equality (Concept) has not convinced me that it is about math. Equality (Concept) still shouts " Martin Luther King or Frederick Douglass could be connected with this category" to me. If you want it to be about math, than say math/mathematics/something like that. However with two articles it makes no sense. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both; excessively vague. Neutrality talk 04:43, 5 May 2011 (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:Quakerism

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Quakerism to Category:Religious Society of Friends
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Otherwise, split Religious Society of Friends into an article about the organizations and Quakerism into an article about the beliefs and practices. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Split the article 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Since there is not a Religious Society of Friends, but multiple groups within Quakerism, some of which broke 200 years ago or more, splitting the article makes sense. Exactly how to split it I am not sure, but it needs to be split, not the category renamed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 3 May 2011 (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.

Quakers by century

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: Delete and recategorize per Christian scheme. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Quakers who died between 1700 and 1799 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Quakers who died between 1800 and 1899 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Quakers who died before 1700 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete these and recategorize the articles by the scheme at Category:Christians by century. Rather than Category:Quakers who died between X and Y, they should be Category:16th-century Quakers, Category:17th-century Quakers, etc. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Just rename. Not delete and re-categorize. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 19:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The schema of categorizing people by group by when died could create unlimited numbers of categories. This is one of those cases where the term "here lies madness' comes to mind. People are generally classifed not by when they died but by century with potentially putting the same person in two centuries. Do we have Category:20th-century Roman Catholics? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, we do, but there are over 1 billion Roman Catholics and only about 350,000 Quakers. The only Protestant denominations for which there are 18th century people categories are Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists and Anglicans. I am not convinced that there are enough Quakers to justify the division of them by century. Anyway these categories are so misnamed that people would have to be severly realigned for them to be accuare. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • A category has to do more than just subdivide another category to be useful and appropriate; the way in which it subdivides must be both useful, not a hindrance to navigation, and not unnecessarily proliferate categories if every possible permutation is created. Category:Quakers by nationality already subdivides Category:Quakers, and I see the largest by nationality grouping only has 315 articles, hardly a cumbersome number to deal with (however one deals with a category's entire contents all at once) considering that it fits on two screens. So we are to categorize that someone was a Quaker both by their nationality, and by the centur[y/ies] in which they lived?

    The rename is an improvement, at least, and given that there is a well-established denominational subcategory structure of Christians by century, doing it here as well isn't creating a new problem. postdlf ( talk) 20:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

True This scheme also subdivides Category:Christians by century. There are only a handful of schemes that are likely to subdivide broad categories of human beings and "[Nationality] X" and "X by century" are by far the two most common. (For religious categories, you could also have "Converts to X", "X clergy", "X martyrs", etc.) I don't know of anyone proposing a double intersection of nationality and century ( Category:17th-century English Quakers) and that would be unnecessarily arcane. As it stands, Quakers by century and nationality (in addition to Category:Converts to Quakerism and other appropriate subcats.) are legitimate and useful schemes for unpacking what would otherwise be large categories. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:34, 1 May 2011 (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:Michael (Archangel)

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: Keep, but rename to Michael (archangel). Dana boomer ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Michael (Archangel) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one file. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:58, 29 April 2011 (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:Christian Pneumatology

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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Christian Pneumatology to Category:Pneumatology
Nominator's rationale: This field is only relevant to Christianity, so the adjective is redundant. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the article certainly doesn't seem to confine itself to Christianity, though that could be the fault of a badly written intro. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:06, 30 April 2011 (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:Prisoners rescued by Jimmy Carter

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: Delete. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Category:Prisoners rescued by Jimmy Carter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unless Carter is going to be travelling around the world Rambo-style rescuing unfortunate Americans caught in places they were stupid being in in the first place, this category is likely not going to grow in size past the single person whom he didn't so much rescue, but more like acted as a parent who had to go pick up their teenage son from a police station in Tijuana who got arrested after a wild night in the bars, complete with freaky, yet cheap, sex with local whores. You get the point :) Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:32, 29 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_29&oldid=1074806915"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE