WIKIPEDIA:CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSION LOG 2012 DECEMBER 22

< December 21	December 23 >

December 22

Roman 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.

The result of the discussion was: delete but if people decide a category for states created as the Empire fragmented is needed it's fine to create one. I'm going to list this at WP:CFDWM so we can put each one in its respective subcategory of Category:Ancient Rome by period, please help out if you feel like it. delldot ∇. 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Roman States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Mishmashy category, Category:Ancient Rome by period serves the same purpose. Brandmeister^talk 23:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, though note that the two don't serve the same purpose; rather, the former's purpose is subsumed by the latter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment -- This is mostly about states created as the Empire fragemnted. We may need a category dealing with that, if we do not have one already. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete not a regular way to categorize. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:13, 2 January 2013 (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.

Landforms of Edith Ronne Land

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: merge and rename, noncontroversial maintiance following the naming/renaming of the area in question. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Landforms of Edith Ronne Land to Category:Landforms of Queen Elizabeth Land

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Edith Ronne Land was only ever an unofficial name for this Antarctic region, recently officially named Queen Elizabeth Land. The following subcategories will need renaming:

Propose merging Category:Landforms of Edith Ronne Land to Category:Landforms of Queen Elizabeth Land

Grutness... wha? 23:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. This is an obvious must-do. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:56, 24 December 2012 (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:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland

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 to fix capitalization. The issue of the split with buildings and congregations will have to be dealt with in another discussion since I'm not seeing enough here to call it a consensus for that. delldot ∇. 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland to Category:Presbyterian churches in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: WP:CAPS, this cat is for all Presbyterian local churches in Ireland, not just members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. It appears that all of these are members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, however most of the Category:Presbyterian churches sub-cats are geographical rather than denominational, and the denominational category would be Category:Presbyterian Church in Ireland churches. JFHutson ( talk) 22:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Presbyterian Church buildings in Ireland. The contents are articles on buildings. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Even if we were going with buildings, why would we capitalize "Church?" Church is only capitalized in a singular proper noun, i.e. Presbyterian Church in Ireland or Ballylinney Presbyterian Church. As for "church buildings," each of these articles lists their current and former ministers, some of them mention the establishment of a church before the building of a church building or "meeting house," some of them talk about former buildings burning down, one discusses the current demographics of the congregation, and one discusses the ministries of the church, so no, they are not about church buildings and I'm getting tired of people asserting that articles about churches are always articles about church buildings. -- JFHutson ( talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Presbyterian church buildings in Ireland (note the lower case). See also the Anglican discussion, below. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Re-name to Category:Presbyterian parishes in Ireland since both the people and buildings are included. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the attempt to speak of congregations rather than buildings, but a parish is not the same thing as a local church. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland does not appear to have a parish system, and even if it did this cat is intended to include all Presby churches (in the sense of local church congregations) in Ireland. Category:Presbyterian churches in Ireland should present no confusion. Even though denoms are called churches, it seems rather obvious what is intended when we get down to this level. -- JFHutson ( talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The Presbyterian Church in Ireland does not have parishes. It has congregations. See http://www.presbyterianireland.org/congregations/index.html -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename per nominator to Category:Presbyterian churches in Ireland, to correct the capitalisation.
The alternative suggestions are all misplaced. As I noted above, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has congregations, not parishes; and the proposal to rename to buildings ignores the fact that these articles are about congregations (rather than just their buildings). Many congregations have had more than one church building. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Split into Category:Presbyterian church buildings in Ireland and Category:Presbyterian church congregations in Ireland. If one looks at the 5 articles, 1 is mostly about the congregation, one is most about the building and the others cover both. So to say these are about the buildings or the congregations is inaccurate and is really due to the ambiguous nature of the word church. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support split RE "parish", I took my lead from the sole example in the Republic - St. Andrew's, Blackrock - which states in its lead "The Blackrock parish was established in 1895 and the church was opened in 1899. Its sister church is St. Andrew's of Bray.". Having said that, I think that Vegaswikian's solution is best. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment, could we stick to the proposal, which is a minor capitalization issue, and if people want to rename church cats to church building or whatever do it separately, perhaps in an RfC? The proposal to use "church building" at the national level is non-standard and the proposal to split is even more so. As it stands whenever I nom one of these with a capitalization error I get into one of these building debates. -- JFHutson ( talk) 22:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply
- No reason to avoid doing the more pressing change at the present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  - The reason is consistency. The proposals are non-standard for these types of cats. A proposal to change the way these types of cats are named in general would generate more discussion and establish consensus. -- JFHutson ( talk) 04:58, 1 January 2013 (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:Identical twin actors

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. delldot ∇. 03:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Identical twin actors to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in a recent discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 10#Identical twins by occupation, merely being identical twins in acting is a non-notable intersection. However, acting in a single movie/episode/series, either as a single character (e.g Jacob and Zachary Handy), or as identical twins (e.g James and Oliver Phelps) is more than an intersection. The category should be rescoped to the second, and renamed accordingly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't see where that was pointed out in that CFD; to the contrary, acting was given by the nom as an exception to the general argument that it wasn't useful to subdivide identical twins by occupation. We also don't require categories to reflect "notable" intersections. The proposed narrowed scope sounds more like something that should be handled by article prose or lists, not something that a category can effectively target. What, Category:Identical twin actors who have acted together in the same film and/or television show? postdlf ( talk) 22:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete being a twin is generally trivial information, possibly worth including in the article but not worth categorizing by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Being identical twins is highly relevant to their work as actors. A clear exception to all the deleted siblings. I'm not clear on what noms suggestion is aiming for: Do you want twins who have played the same character removed, but keep ones who played different characters? Do you mean primarily, or at all in their career? -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep Defining trait in this occupation. Dimadick ( talk) 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep There are lots of categories similar to this on wikipedia. Dr who1975 ( talk) 23:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: That's the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Keep: This actually is very relevant and sometimes but not always a defining characteristic in acting. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep, but only for articles about the PAIR - purge all individual biographies - if they are sufficiently distinct in careers, histories, biographies to merit individual articles - this aspect is at that point no longer important but trivial. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete as WP:OCAT. I don't see why we need to denote that X has an identical twin outside of the article prose. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 17:00, 25 December 2012 (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:Terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no merge/rename. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Terminology to Category:Concepts

Nominator's rationale: Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these artilces and subcategories should be eventually be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Universally all of the following should be merged or moved to their "concepts" counterpart:

Greg Bard ( talk) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Widely used and perfectly acceptable term across Wikipedia. A lot of the items in the various terminology categories aren't "concepts" in the strictest sense of the word, but do fit well as terminology. I agree that some form of standardising is useful, but a single cfd ain't the way to go about it. Grutness... wha? 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Okay, just because something is widely used in Wikipedia (a wiki which is capable of changing at any time) does consist in any justification of the status quo. Furthermore, if you will give me a minute, I will complete the necessary multiple category discussion tagging, as appropriate Greg Bard ( talk) 23:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The multiple category tagging is just making it more of a trainwreck. You're adding in more categories where the term "concept" is not accurate. Grutness... wha? 23:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't think you fully appreciate the implications of the proposal. For any articles or categories that are not themselves "concepts" (object which appear in the mind only, not as the image of a particular physical object) , they will merely revert to the supracategory. This is a wonderful development that makes more appropriate categorization possible later. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. Clarifies the meaning of these categories and the fact that articles are not to be about words. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences makes it clear that articles about terms themselves do not belong in the encyclopedia. -- JFHutson ( talk) 23:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
- So how do you handle something like Tutu (ballet)? It's not a concept (i.e., an abstract object, mental representation, or ability - as defined in the article concept), it's a term. And it's distinctly ballet terminology. Do you relegate it to Wiktionary because it's just a word? Or is it something that can have an encyclopedic article written about it? How about Cover art (comics terminology); Tunnel valley (geography terminology); Tithe (religious terminology)...? Grutness... wha? 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

This is a perfect example of why this is a good idea. A tutu is a physical object, not a concept. The article belongs in the more general ballet category, not some contrived terminological category. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

A tutu is indeed a physical object, but it's also a term used to cover several similar and related objects. As such, it belongs in a specific terminology category, not in some even more contrived Concept category. Grutness... wha? 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

There should not even be a "terminology" category tree. The concepts category tree is well thought out, and well organized. I find it unfortunate that you are resorting to rhetoric, as there is no sense in which the "concepts" category is contrived at all. It is a well established ontological category, whereas "terminology" is not. Greg Bard ( talk) 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure "tutu" is a word. But the tutu article is not about the word tutu (though the etymology of the English word is relevant to the subject), the tutu article is about tutus, whatever word we might use for them. By tutu being a term describing several similar or related objects, aren't all of those objects tutus? -- JFHutson ( talk) 03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing the thrust of your question. In my view what happens in the case of "tutu" is that it is moved to the supracategory "ballet." In my view there just is no additional benefit to a terminology category underneath any academic area, field of study, art , science etcetera. What great benefit is there to having e an "x" category and an "x terminology" category too? My main concern is that every article is classified under the Fundamental categories. So at some point "tutu" should be under the "physical object" category tree. If we do not merge these to concepts and move the inappropriate ones to their respective supracategories, there will eventually be a great unnecessary overlap and duplication. Greg Bard ( talk) 05:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose as a violation of established policy. We can not and should not have two open CfD discussions as the same time. This does not help reach a consensus. This one should probably be closed until the other ones are closed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose on the merits per Grutness, and speedy close on the procedures per Vegaswikian. Relist this only after the already-pending discussions are closed. postdlf ( talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose - (ec x 2) - There is a difference between a term for a concept, and the concept itself. And not all of the terms so categorised are necessarily terms for "concepts", per se. A term is applicable to a noun. And a noun my be a person, place, thing, or conceptual idea, to use a common shorthand definition. - jc37 00:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose - in the case of opera terminology that is the correct term for words that are used in the field accepted by many in multiple languages; it is not the same as opera concepts which refers to ideas relating to opera. -- kosboot ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose - a concept of ballet might be grace, or imagery, or symbolism; these are not terms specific to ballet. However, demi-plié is a term. See the difference? Not interchangeable; the one is not a replacement for the other. Although, unfortunately, in my example, the target article is not "Ballet terms" but rather Glossary of ballet. Perhaps we should move Glossary of ballet to Ballet terms, but that is a different discussion. Killer Chihuahua 01:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment - Good on nom for trying to fix a glaring problem. I don't think merging to concepts is the right location, as the problem is most of the terminology categories are filled with non-terminology articles. The idea of Tutu (ballet) being used to protect a terminology category just astounds me. Yet there are a few valid terminology articles around. As with previous terminology cfds, my suggestion is to clean out everything that doesn't belong and only then examine if a category is worth keeping/renaming/merging, or maybe listifying. Otherwise we're just going to keep going around in circles. Really, in most cases a category for terminology is far less use than a glossary article. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. This overbroadens the categories too much for my taste.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. per kosboot and others. Terminology means technical terms used perfectly properly in various walks of life. Concepts strike me as wishy-washy drivel - have a look at Concept. -- Guillaume Tell 10:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. The category I followed here is about actual terms used for members of a community rather than concepts. That is a step backwards in helping find information. Insomesia ( talk) 13:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The terms describe the concepts, but they are not the concepts. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose this terrible sweeping proposal that is a violation of WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT. The words " Terminology" or "terms" are much more down to Earth and concrete and are about common and practical things and phenomena, they are words and semantics that people actually use, while " Concepts" are totally abstract, entirely non-physical, and more academic and ethereal that has more to do with theory and philosophy and metaphysics like notions and theories. Gosh, this must surely be a royal example of WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose: This is just silly. A concept may be described by any number of terms in one or more terminologies. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC) PS: And procedurally close it, regardless, per Vegaswikian. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose For all the reasons stated above; "terminology" refers to specialized word use; I have no idea what "concepts" refers to. Ecphora ( talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose: Terminology and concepts are not always or necessarily interchangeable. ww2censor ( talk) 23:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Not interchangeable terms, "concepts" usually refers to much wider ideas, and is more loosely defined and more subject to varying interpretations. Tomas e ( talk) 12:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose in respect to opera terminology: "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it." And it " 'aint broke". Viva-Verdi ( talk) 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose Terminology and Concepts are not the same and should be kept separate from each other. I do agree that there are many articals catagorized as Terminology that would be better catagorized as Concepts, but that does not justify reclasifing terminalogy articles as concepts when they are not concepts. Dbiel ^(
Talk) 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose as not needed and not the same meaning. GregJackP Boomer! 05:04, 4 January 2013 (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.

On renaming terms to terminology

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: taken into account in closing each section below. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't want to have to copy/paste to every discussion below, so just noting here that, in general, I support "terms", and oppose "terminology". "Terminology" gives the sense of some over-arching system of terms, which isn't necessarily the case in each instance. - jc37 01:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Agree with Jc37's rationale, and Oppose changing these categories from "terms" to "terminology." Killer Chihuahua 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsure. I guess my question is, is one of these always the correct one? In looking across all of the nominations, I do see some which to me should be left as terms and others that should be renamed. With this many nominations, I'm not convinced we will be able to find the ones that should not be renamed if we get into mass renaming hysteria. Also note the existence of Category:Martial arts terminology stubs‎ under Category:Martial arts terms and then looking at the the contents of the latter, it is mostly moves. If my observation is correct, is either of the suggested options correct (ignoring the subcategories)? Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support except for glossary directories: Glossaries contain terms, not terminologies. Terminology is not a plural of term, nor a long-winded synonym of it (both of these ideas have been asserted in the sub-CfDs below). It's a different concept. It means 'system of terms'. NOR Alert: Asserting that, say kung fu has no such terminological system but that Canadian politics does (or whatever examples you pick) is pure original research. We need to presume (absent reliable sources that contradict the assumption in some particular case) that any field that generates its own terms of art to such a degree that we have a whole category for them probably has a terminological system, albeit usually informal. The usual question here is "can you write an article about it?" and the answer to this question is almost always "yes" for the categories below. It would be easy to write an article about the terminological details of how things are named in kung fu vs. jiu jutsu, or in Canadian vs. American politics. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
oppose all renames I don't see the point and "terms" seems perfectly accurate. Mangoe ( talk) 02:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support: I fully support the standardization of category names related to terminology (terms) Specifically Category:Education-related terms which I originally created to Category:Education terminology Dbiel ^(
Talk) 03:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose as not needed nor necessary, and "Legal terms" != "Legal terminology". GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Subcategories of Category:Religious terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. However, upmerge Category:Raëlian terms to Category:Raëlism per WP:SMALLCAT, and split Category:Theravadan terms and concepts to Category:Theravada Buddhist terms and Category:Theravada Buddhist concepts. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Buddhist terms to Category:Buddhist terminology
Propose renaming Category:Latter Day Saint terms to Category:Latter Day Saint terminology
Propose renaming Category:Catholic terms to Category:Catholic terminology
Propose renaming Category:Christian terms to Category:Christian terminology
Propose renaming Category:Islamic terms to Category:Islamic terminology
Propose renaming Category:Judaism terms to Category:Judaism terminology
Propose renaming Category:New Thought terms to Category:New Thought terminology
Propose renaming Category:Sikh terms to Category:Sikh terminology
Propose renaming Category:Theravadan terms and concepts to Category:Theravadan terminology and concepts
Propose merging Category:Raëlian terms to Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Religious terminology. Note that some others like Category:Bahá'í terminology and Category:Wiccan terminology use the "terminology" style. The Raelian category is just for one entry, and not one about terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The teminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support "Terminology" is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: That's not actually correct. Terms is the plural. Terminology is not a plural at all, it's a completely different word that means 'system of terms'. It's an important distinction, but here only for one or two categories (e.g. Category:Glossaries of medical terms). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Split Category:Theravadan terms and concepts. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep current terms, since there is no difference between "terms" and "terminology". IZAK ( talk) 01:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: There is a difference; see immediately above. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
I strongly oppose the merger proposal of Category:Raëlian terms to Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices: May I respectfully ask My Dear Friend Mike Selinker (and the supporters, if any?) to highlight at-least a couple of reasons that strictly demonstrates why the merger is an absolute necessity; I even question the venue On renaming terms to terminology chosen to discuss this very specific merger proposal (well, at-least to Me, it dosen't make much of a sense) ?! -- Abstruce ^(
Talk) 08:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC) reply

There's only one article in Category:Raëlian terms. I'm happy to have that one go to "terminology" instead, but one article seems too small for such a category.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:22, 4 January 2013 (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:Electronics terms

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Electronics terms to Category:Electronics terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Technical terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Most (probably all) of the articles in the category are not about language and hence shouldn't be in a category under Category:Language at all. If moving to "terminology" would then make it easier to remove articles from the cat (less resistance from editors who don't understand that articles are categorized based on their subject, not whether the article title is a term etc) then I support rename, although in general we should try to avoid cluttering up edit histories with temporary renaming of categories. Similar subjects ( Optics, Hydraulics etc) don't have a terms/terminology/miscellaneous category. DexDor ( talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (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:Political terms

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. This one also avoids ambiguity re term of office. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Political terms to Category:Political terminology
Propose renaming Category:Election campaign terms to Category:Election campaign terminology
Propose renaming Category:Australian political terms to Category:Political terminology in Australia
Propose renaming Category:Canadian political terms to Category:Political terminology in Canada
Propose renaming Category:Pakistani political terms to Category:Political terminology in Pakistan
Propose renaming Category:American political terms to Category:Political terminology of the United States
Propose renaming Category:Republican Party (United States) terms to Category:Republican Party (United States) terminology
Propose renaming Category:United States presidential elections terms to Category:United States presidential elections terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. "Political terms" is ambiguous, as it suggests lengths of time one might be in a particular political post. Note the subcategories Category:Geopolitical terminology and others. Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

(shrugs) no real problem with it - does make it broader which is a Good Thing I guess...... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The teminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: Gregbard, you don't seem to understand that terminology means 'system of terms'; it is not a synonym or plural of term. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support per argument above by SMcCandlish. Mar4d ( talk) 09:41, 24 December 2012 (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:Medical terms

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 excluding glossaries and obsolete terms; the latter likewise isn't a system of terms. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Medical terms to Category:Medical terminology
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries of medical terms to Category:Glossaries of medical terminology
Propose renaming Category:Obsolete medical terms to Category:Obsolete medical terminology
Propose renaming Category:Psychiatric terms to Category:Psychiatric terminology
Propose renaming Category:Psychology terms to Category:Psychology terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. Note the subcategories Category:Dermatologic terminology and Category:Psychoanalytic terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support: a less ambiguous "term"
Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support. Better name, and far more useful that "concepts", since not all of these items relate to concepts. Grutness... wha? 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Again, you are failing to see that this is a very useful thing that will make more appropriate categorization possible. Those that are not concepts will be moved elsewhere to more useful categorization. (Which heretofor has not happened because of the meaningless "terminology" category tree Greg Bard ( talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support WITH EXCEPTION: Category:Glossaries of medical terms should remain as is. Terminology means a system of terms; glossaries contain terms, not systems of terms. It's the same distinction as between methodology and method. The non-glossary categories should be moved because they all could, arguably should and probably already do contain a "X terminology" article that is not a glossary of terms but an article about the system of terminology in that particular field. Confusing terminology with terms themselves is a Korzybskian fallacy, like mistaking the menu for a meal on it, or the map for the land features it describes. I obviously cannot agree with Gregbard that "terminology" is simply a long-winded way to say "term[s]"; there's a real distinction. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:15, 24 December 2012 (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:Martial arts terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Martial arts terms to Category:Martial arts terminology
Propose renaming Category:Chinese martial arts terms to Category:Chinese martial arts terminology
Propose renaming Category:Japanese martial arts terms to Category:Japanese martial arts terminology
Propose renaming Category:Directional terms in Japanese martial arts to Category:Directional terminology in Japanese martial arts
Propose renaming Category:Aikido terms and principles to Category:Aikido terminology and principles

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard
Oppose Terms is much more succint - with respect to the concepts proposal concepts could replace principles I suppose but concepts and terms are not mutually inclusive. Peter Rehse ( talk) 01:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC) ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Split Category:Aikido terms and principles. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Also Split Aikido, per Vegaswikian. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (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:Anti-cult terms and concepts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts to Category:Anti-cult terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. I don't think "concepts" is needed here.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The teminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. This particular category should be moved to Category:Anti-cult concepts. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (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:Business terms

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 split banking into Category:Banking terms and Category:Banking equipment. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Business terms to Category:Business terminology
Propose renaming Category:Business term stubs to Category:Business terminology stubs
Propose renaming Category:Japanese business terms to Category:Japanese business terminology
Propose renaming Category:Show business terms to Category:Show business terminology
Propose renaming Category:International commerce terms to Category:International commerce terminology
Propose renaming Category:Insurance terms to Category:Insurance terminology
Propose renaming Category:Banking terms and equipment to Category:Banking terminology and equipment

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. Note that there are several subcategories of Category:Business terms which use "terminology," such as Category:Marketing terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose for Category:International commerce terms, as that's not a general name for any terminology relating to international commerce, but rather a specific group of things known precisely as "international commerce terms", or Incoterms for short. We can debate elsewhere whether the category should then also follow the short form used in the article title, but the proposed rename here should be rejected in any event. postdlf ( talk) 00:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Split Category:Banking terms and equipment. Really terms and equipment? Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. Split banking, per Vegaswikian. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:35, 24 December 2012 (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:Academic terms

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; there is a persuasive argument in this case to avoid ambiguity with Academic term, and "terminology" matches some sub-cats. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Education-related terms to Category:Education terminology
Propose renaming Category:Academic terms to Category:Academic terminology
Propose renaming Category:School-related terms to Category:School terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. I am not sure all of these are needed; it might be reasonable to merge all three. I also don't think the "-related" is needed here; "School terms" is ambiguous with the concept of semesters and academic years, but "School terminology" isn't.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (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:LGBT terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:LGBT terms to Category:LGBT terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak support per SmcC rationale. But each of the sub-cats should be named "terms". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Some of these are exactly terms, terminology seems to be a poor word choice here or perhaps everywhere. Insomesia ( talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (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:Magical terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Magical terms to Category:Magical terminology
Propose renaming Category:Magical terms in Germanic mysticism to Category:Magical terminology in Germanic mysticism

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:15, 27 December 2012 (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:Nautical terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Nautical terms to Category:Nautical terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Support. Better name, and far more useful that "concepts", since not all of these items relate to concepts. Grutness... wha? 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

oppose all renames I don't see the point and "terms" seems perfectly accurate. Mangoe ( talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (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:Pornography terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Pornography terms to Category:Pornography terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (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:Publishing terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Publishing terms to Category:Publishing terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. See also the subcategory Category:Newspaper terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. The "Newspaper" is practically synonymous with "Publishing" and is certainly not another system. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (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:Sociological terms

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Sociological terms to Category:Sociological terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. See also the subcategories Category:Globalization terminology‎ and Category:Imperialism terminology. ‎-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Weak support per SmcC rationale. Else take out the two sub-cats and keep current name. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:04, 27 December 2012 (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:Climbing terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Climbing terms to Category:Climbing terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (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:Wine terms

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Wine terms to Category:Wine terminology

Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Greg Bard ( talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard ( talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Comment: See above; it's not a plural, but a different concept. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Neutral. I can live with terminology, but I see little problem with terms. Tomas e ( talk) 12:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 01:00, 27 December 2012 (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:Křivoklát

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) 12:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Křivoklát ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete basically per WP:SMALLCAT. This is a very small town (<1000 inhabitants) and although we could add Křivoklát Castle to the category, it's hard to imagine that it can ever grow beyond that. Pichpich ( talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (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:Buildings and structures in Thurles

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: merge to both parents. delldot ∇. 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Thurles. A

Proposer's rationale An example of over-categorisation. It's a small town, not a city. Contents belong to the parent Category:Buildings and structures in North Tipperary. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge to both parents. The nominator is right that Thurles is indeed a small(ish) town, and this category fails WP:SMALLCAT. However, the contents belong in both parents: Category:Thurles and Category:Buildings and structures in North Tipperary. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:25, 28 December 2012 (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:Dutch Reformed churches

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 to Category:Dutch Reformed Church buildings. I wasn't super clear on whether people preferred the upper- or lower-case 'church'; I picked the former per Jfhutson's explanation that that would refer to any buildings of the Dutch Reformed Church. Hopefully that will not include many more buildings than would belong in the "Church churches" category, which was widely opposed. I see this is not consistent with another discussion, but I also understand there's not consistency for naming of these categories. delldot ∇. 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Note, I'm not going to rename the subcategories since they were not tagged and there was no discussion of them specifically except for in the nom, and the consensus was not so sweeping that I can consider it obvious enough to do under those circumstances. delldot ∇. 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed churches to Category:Dutch Reformed Church churches

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other categories of congregations of denominations with "Church" in the name. This one is churches in the Dutch Reformed Church. Please also rename sub-categories. JFHutson ( talk) 02:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Dutch Reformed church buildings or Category:Dutch Reformed Church buildings (whichever is the correct spelling) as is the norm for buildings. In this case besides being unambiguous, it avoids the double church in the name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't think buildings are all that is being referred to here, and in other church categories. A local congregation is commonly referred to as a church. Also, Category:Dutch Reformed church buildings would be all Reformed church buildings which are Dutch, and Category:Dutch Reformed Church buildings would include all buildings of the Dutch Reformed Church, churches and otherwise. So even if we use building I would prefer Category:Dutch Reformed Church church buildings -- JFHutson ( talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You are correct about church being ambiguous. So since most of these are about buildings, a point you may disagree with, they should be renamed to reflect that. Then if necessary categories can be created for the minority that include more than a passing mention of the congregation. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't believe I said anything about the term being ambiguous. I think I'm being misunderstood to say sometimes church means church building and sometimes it means congregation. What I mean is that church means a local congregation (when it doesn't refer to a denom or the church universal), which has a building, which is referred to as such and such a church as a shorthand, just as my workplace is sometimes referred to as such and such a company even though it would be absurd to describe my company as a building. All church articles which currently only mention buildings have the church that meets/met there within the scope of the article. The fact that the article does not mention the congregation just means the article is underdeveloped, because why would you have a church building without a congregation? Perhaps there are sects that do not have any organizational entity that corresponds with a local congregation, but the Dutch Reformed ain't one of them.

I did not make this nom to argue over buildings and church bodies, but because the contents of this cat implied local churches in the Dutch Reformed Church denom, but the title implies all churches which are Dutch and Reformed in character, which is much broader. -- JFHutson ( talk) 03:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply

A review of the entries shows that they are all NRHP-listed buildings except for one church building in the Caribbean. Personally I oppose the rename because I don't think the current names are significantly ambiguous, but if we must rename them, I would prefer Category:Dutch Reformed church buildings over the awkward "Church churches" form. Mangoe ( talk) 03:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose as per Mangoe. If renaming is required, I agree, avoid the church churches construction. dm ( talk) 07:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename per Vegaswikian -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 12:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Based on the contents, rename per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 12:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Dutch Reformed Church buildings. The contents are articles on buildings. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:05, 23 December 2012 (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:Fictional United States congressional districts

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. postdlf ( talk) 22:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose deleting Category:Fictional United States congressional districts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, two articles one I prodded as an article with a dubious agenda, the second one not really fictional Delete Secret ^account 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Delete I removed the one entry that was not fictional, but only former. The other article really is not worth having as a seperate article, so the whole thing just is not worth having. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 12:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. I was expecting a district used in a novel, not a big deal made out of a typo. -- Qetuth ( talk) 02:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and per Qetuth; this category is farcical. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 02:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Even the one article that's actually filed in it isn't something we need an article about — and I have an extremely hard time imagining any scenario where we could ever actually need or want an article about a congressional district that existed only in a novel or a movie either. Bearcat ( talk) 20:29, 26 December 2012 (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:Episcopal churches

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. delldot ∇. 20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Episcopal churches to Category:Episcopal church buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be unambiguous and to match the parent category, Category:Anglican church buildings and the other siblings of that category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose, there is no clear norm for these categories, see Category:Church buildings by denomination and it's sub-cats. It actually appears that "churches" is more prevalent. The church articles in these categories are about churches in the sense of congregation as well as their buildings. Parenthetically, if you want this cat to be less ambiguous it should be renamed Category:Episcopal Church (United States) churches if it is for churches in the Episcopal Church (United States), as there are many Episcopal church denominations, some of which are not Anglican, others of which have their own cats which are not sub-cats of Category:Episcopal churches. -- JFHutson ( talk) 03:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename current name is highly ambiguous, since it could mean the sect, and not the building. We should not confuse the two and categorize jointly. A separate category for the congregations/sects can be created. -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 12:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. The current name is ambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 12:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Rename – Confuses buildings with church organizations. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 01:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC) reply

But the articles in the cat are about organizations (congregations), not buildings. As an example, I randomly selected St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Brewster, New York). The church began meeting in a town hall in 1872 until it burned down. A church building was built in 1881, and another one replaced this one in 1901. The article is properly about the congregation that met in these places, even though it is notable for the architectural features of the current building. The article discusses some of the ministers, ministries, and organizations of the church. This article, and I suspect every other article in the cat, is about a church in the sense of local church rather than church building, even though information about a building is often (though not always) what makes the articles notable. -- JFHutson ( talk) 17:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

But most of these are probably NRHP articles and as such are about the building often making no mention of the use of the building or the denomination. In most cases these are created from a listing and the fact that a congregation was there is not material. In fact if the name does not establish a denomination, there is nothing in the article text to identify the worshiping denomination. It should also be pointed out that some of these may also be used by multiple denominations. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Oppose per Jfhutson. These articles are about local churches rather than just their church buildings. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Oppose per Jfhutson & BHG. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 6 January 2013 (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.

December 22

Roman States

Landforms of Edith Ronne Land

Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland

Category:Identical twin actors

Category:Terminology

On renaming terms to terminology

Subcategories of Category:Religious terminology

Category:Electronics terms

Category:Political terms

Category:Medical terms

Category:Martial arts terms

Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts

Category:Business terms

Category:Academic terms

Category:LGBT terms

Category:Magical terms

Category:Nautical terms

Category:Pornography terms

Category:Publishing terms

Category:Sociological terms

Category:Climbing terms

Category:Wine terms

Category:Křivoklát

Category:Buildings and structures in Thurles

Category:Dutch Reformed churches

Category:Fictional United States congressional districts

Category:Episcopal churches

December 22

Roman States

Landforms of Edith Ronne Land

Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland

Category:Identical twin actors

Category:Terminology

On renaming terms to terminology

Subcategories of Category:Religious terminology

Category:Electronics terms

Category:Political terms

Category:Medical terms

Category:Martial arts terms

Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts

Category:Business terms

Category:Academic terms

Category:LGBT terms

Category:Magical terms

Category:Nautical terms

Category:Pornography terms

Category:Publishing terms

Category:Sociological terms

Category:Climbing terms

Category:Wine terms

Category:Křivoklát

Category:Buildings and structures in Thurles

Category:Dutch Reformed churches

Category:Fictional United States congressional districts

Category:Episcopal churches

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook