September 20
Category:Ancient Roman forts
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is superseded by a few new and old categories, such as legionary fortresses, fortified camps, and milecastles, as well as auxiliary forts, as such the broad term of fort is no longer needed. The ancient forts in ____ should follow the same decision of the ancient roman forts, I've already tagged every page in it with a new category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – the nom needs to say what will happen to Category:Ancient Roman forts in Algeria etc, and why the broad term of 'fort' is not suitable for a parent category. Oculi ( talk) 10:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Oculi: I have been going through them and tagging all of the pages, so if/when the folder is deleted they are all in a better category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the observation of Oculi, and the main article castra would have only a city-planning connection to the Roman category tree, which is absurd because many castra never developed into cities. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Carlossuarez46: (Sorry my notifications aren't working so ill be slow to respond) The reason I nom-ed it for deletion was because roman auxiliary forts, roman legionary forts, roman fortified camps, roman mileforts, are all castra, castra applies to all of them, making roman forts wildly unspecific, the breakdown into actual categories makes sense, and as for city planning I have no idea what you are talking about. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep until everything is recategorised. I would expect most forts to be auxiliary ones. I would suggest that these be purged of legionary forts and small installations like mile castles and signal stations. After that this the subcategory can be merged and this one deleted or merged. This needs to be the end of the process, not the start. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron: Actually the vast majority of them are legionary forts, as auxiliaries rarely got their own fort, and legionary takes precedence over auxiliary, but we still have a category for it, also I cannot really understand what you are talking about, and almost all of it has already been re-categorized, I should be done by today or tomorrow.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 22:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Peterkingiron: It is done, every article in it or its subfolders has been tagged appropriately, based on whether it is a legionary, auxiliary fort, or else fortified camp. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly (do I?), nominator has manually added all (relevant) articles of this category and its subcats to the far older tree of Category:Roman legionary fortresses. That could have been achieved more efficiently with a merge nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: the problem with that is as mentioned above, fort is too broad a term, I didn't just slap a legionary fortress category on it, I read the article and put it in the category it belonged in, ie auxiliary fort, fortified camp, etc . Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, while I think this has procedurally been quite confusing to most of us (because normally we discuss something before we undertake action), I suppose this nomination is worth supporting. By the way, I've notified the category creator to also hear about their perspective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: if you support it you should make a Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still oppose -- While the majority of forts in number are probably auxiliary, it is likely that most are NN, so that I am prepared to believe that the majority of those categorised were legionary. However, the whole tree needs to be recategorised. If we just delete this, we will be left with partially orphaned categories. I sampled Egypt, where Cusae has a legionary connection, but it is not clear to me whether it was a legionary fortress or a colonia of its veterans. The Romanian subcat has a large number of "castra" most of which are stub articles, and were almost certainly mostly auxiliary. The England category appears all auxiliary, but the Wales (which has anachronistically been split into the current counties etc) and Scotland ones contain both. The nom says that he has sorted them, but I am not convinced that he has yet. He needs to start at the bottom and rename the national subcategories, purging as necessary, and adding them to a new tree. When that has been done, it may be appropriate to make this a container category, or delete it, but not yet. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron:, the Category:Roman military fortifications contains a bunch of categories that i listed that supersedes the ancient forts, then all of them are broken down by country. I fail to see where your objection is. as for cusae, it says it was the settlement of Legio II Flavia Constantia, making it a fort, if it were a colonia it would say so. I fail to see what your argument is, and also very little of england is auxiliary, as I previously mentioned it is very rare for auxiliary only forts to exist alone, usually they are with a legion, making them legionary forts or camps.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong about auxiliary forts to be rare. Almost all the forts in England were manned by non-legionary (i.e. auxiliary) units. You need to start off you ensuring that all the articles on the tree have a category, according to what you are proposing. Then nominate the national forts categories for deletion (or renaming). When you have removed all those we can consider the present nom. Nominating a grandparent category alone is liable to leave the child categories orphaned or without an appropriate parent. I do not know about Cusae, but the term "settlement" is ambiguous and might refer to a fort or a colonia; the word suggests to me the latter, but I do not know. IN UK, I think York may have had both, but otherwise they are mutually exclusive. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Order of the Smile
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete, upmerge. Single-item category, after deletion of its subcategory of recipients. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and deletion of subcat. Neutrality talk 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- 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; merge contents to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A "category" of two? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff ( talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. Having a city-specific category doesn't add anything here. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (i.e., upmerge) - subcat impedes rather than facilitates navigation here. Neutrality talk 04:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge as others have suggested. This is much to specific and is unlikely to get well-populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania.-- Pubdog ( talk) 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:James McCartney
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Album articles have been placed in recently created Category:James McCartney albums category. Contents also include parents when 1) they are mentioned in the James McCartney article and 2) all 3 articles can be found in Category:McCartney family. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:WFMU DJs
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:WFMU DJs into Category:American radio DJs
- Nominator's rationale: The general state of being an Category:American radio DJs is an appropriately WP:DEFINING characteristic -- but subcategorizing them by individual station that they happened to be DJs on is a WP:PERFCAT violation. Bearcat ( talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Religion by region and continent
- 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 as originally nominated.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion by region and continent to Category:Religion by continent and region
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by continent and not by region. Wwikix ( talk) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support – the convention is that 'Category:Foo by A and B' parses as 'Category:(Foo by A) by B'. Oculi ( talk) 09:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:Religion by region by continent. Wwikix ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support original nomination. The current standard is as nominated. If the current standard is not clear enough there should be a wider nomination to change that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Religion by country and region
- 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 as originally nominated. That appears to be the standard in categories right now.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion by country and region to Category:Religion by region and country
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by region and not by country. Wwikix ( talk) 16:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:Religion by country by region. Wwikix ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Religion by country and continent
- 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 as originally nominated. That appears to be the standard in categories right now.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion by country and continent to Category:Religion by continent and country
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by continent and not by country. Wwikix ( talk) 16:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:Religion by country by continent. Wwikix ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People by religion and continent
- 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 as originally nominated. That appears to be the standard in categories right now.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People by religion and continent to Category:People by continent and religion
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by continent and not by religion Wwikix ( talk) 16:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:People by religion by continent. Wwikix ( talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Somalian linguists
- 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: not merged. (
non-admin closure)
SST
flyer 05:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Somalian linguists into Category:Somali linguists
- Nominator's rationale: Correct demonym Pwolit iets ( talk) 16:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose all – subcats of Category:Somalian people. Oculi ( talk) 11:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Somali linguists could also mean linguists of the Somali language. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. This should follow the name format of Category:Somalian people. If that head category is renamed, then this should be as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Somalian people by occupation
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian people by occupation to Category:Somali people by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian physicians to Category:Somali physicians
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian educators to Category:Somali educators
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian designers to Category:Somali designers
- Nominator's rationale: This is the correct demonym both in the native language and in scholarly English languages. The addition of a suffix -an seems to be a confused conflation of neighboring African place names.
I also propose renaming the subcategories.Pwolit iets ( talk) 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Two previous discussions, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 12 § Category:Somali people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 14 § Category:Somalian culture, may provide some insightful background on this topic. Rebb ing 12:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note Subcategories not tagged or listed here. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – the present name was chosen at cfd in 2010, to resolve problems between ethnicity and nationality. In any case the nom has to start with Category:Somalian people; exactly this rename was proposed at cfd on 14 Aug 2016 and did not achieve consensus. Oculi ( talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now. These should follow the head category, which is currently Category:Somalian people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Unitarian Universalist 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Unitarian Universalist churches to Category:Unitarian Universalist places of worship
- Propose renaming Category:Unitarian Universalist churches in the United States to Category:Unitarian Universalist places of worship in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada to Category:Unitarian Universalist places of worship in Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Current title is not neutral because UU also have practises associated with shrines, monasteries, mosques, synagogues and temples among others. Also, some of the worship places are not even named churches, but rather meeting house etc.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 06:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- It would be biased to describe UU as incorporating merely churchy aspects into their religiosity since members practise rituals associated with numerous non-Christian and even non-Abrahamic religions. Pwolit iets ( talk) 16:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wait with the rename until the category actually contains a reasonable amount of non-church places of worship. Which is not the case yet. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thats incorrect because it is the case now. For example some of the names derive from its status as a Christian denomination prior to its emergence as a separate religion, but its congregations nonetheless have diverged sufficiently since then. Also, some of the pages in the subcategories that were established post the 1961 consolidation specifically specify with alternate titles, see for example in North Carolina, Alaska, Indiania.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority is still called Unitarian Universalist Church.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only capitalized. None are uncapitalized/lower-case. Pwolit iets ( talk) 06:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority is still called Unitarian Universalist Church.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thats incorrect because it is the case now. For example some of the names derive from its status as a Christian denomination prior to its emergence as a separate religion, but its congregations nonetheless have diverged sufficiently since then. Also, some of the pages in the subcategories that were established post the 1961 consolidation specifically specify with alternate titles, see for example in North Carolina, Alaska, Indiania.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- The vast majority of the articles in the US state-level categories are called "church", which has the merits of brevity. A few are "chapel" or"society", but strictly a "society" is probably not a"place of worship" either. The denomination may aspire to bring in places of worship of other religions, but I see no sign of that having succeeded among the articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is capitalized/upercase though, and those titles typically derive from their designation prior to the 1961 consolidation. Secondly, the word church has a very specific definition. Since UU gatherings do not fit the conventional definition of a church, Wikipedia would be misleading readers and in a nutshell would contain incorrect info.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 09:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, brevity is not a valid option if the brevity option is not synonymous. No other
syncretic religion is described as a church on Wikipedia - UU shouldn't be an exception. This would set a very bad precedent of misusing the English language.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- The category does not imply they are a church, it only implies that they are using churches.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. If a church starts only offering Friday prayers for Muslims, then it is no longer a church but a mosque. Similarly, if a church starts offering only NRM services its similarly distinct.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then RS will (probably) start referring to it as a mosque, so that's not a good analogy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. There's a tendency for American sources to treat ambiguous religious worship sites as churches. Take for example a look at polls done by even reputable think tanks wherein a generalized religious survey is followed up with references only to churches, whereas synagogues etc. are ignored. This is not the case with UK think tanks or pollsters. This is probably due to the ubiquity of Christianity in America, hence this incorrect slant in the naming of worship sites.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 06:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia guidelines allows for incorrect information to be present in articles due to our verifiability WP:NOTTRUTH guidelines. The same does not hold true for categories, so our categories should hold some semblance of factuality. Pwolit iets ( talk) 06:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. There's a tendency for American sources to treat ambiguous religious worship sites as churches. Take for example a look at polls done by even reputable think tanks wherein a generalized religious survey is followed up with references only to churches, whereas synagogues etc. are ignored. This is not the case with UK think tanks or pollsters. This is probably due to the ubiquity of Christianity in America, hence this incorrect slant in the naming of worship sites.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 06:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then RS will (probably) start referring to it as a mosque, so that's not a good analogy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. If a church starts only offering Friday prayers for Muslims, then it is no longer a church but a mosque. Similarly, if a church starts offering only NRM services its similarly distinct.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- The category does not imply they are a church, it only implies that they are using churches.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, brevity is not a valid option if the brevity option is not synonymous. No other
syncretic religion is described as a church on Wikipedia - UU shouldn't be an exception. This would set a very bad precedent of misusing the English language.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is capitalized/upercase though, and those titles typically derive from their designation prior to the 1961 consolidation. Secondly, the word church has a very specific definition. Since UU gatherings do not fit the conventional definition of a church, Wikipedia would be misleading readers and in a nutshell would contain incorrect info.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 09:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:NONDEF, articles in this category aren't about globalization and/or aren't about theories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. I think the nom is mostly correct, but the
world systems theory article and its subcategory are a kind of globalization theory. If this cat is deleted, those two should be upmerged to
Category:Globalization. --
Mark viking (
talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. I think the nom is mostly correct, but the
world systems theory article and its subcategory are a kind of globalization theory. If this cat is deleted, those two should be upmerged to
Category:Globalization. --
Mark viking (
talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a hotchpotch of stuff most of which is not about globalisation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
September 20
Category:Ancient Roman forts
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is superseded by a few new and old categories, such as legionary fortresses, fortified camps, and milecastles, as well as auxiliary forts, as such the broad term of fort is no longer needed. The ancient forts in ____ should follow the same decision of the ancient roman forts, I've already tagged every page in it with a new category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – the nom needs to say what will happen to Category:Ancient Roman forts in Algeria etc, and why the broad term of 'fort' is not suitable for a parent category. Oculi ( talk) 10:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Oculi: I have been going through them and tagging all of the pages, so if/when the folder is deleted they are all in a better category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the observation of Oculi, and the main article castra would have only a city-planning connection to the Roman category tree, which is absurd because many castra never developed into cities. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Carlossuarez46: (Sorry my notifications aren't working so ill be slow to respond) The reason I nom-ed it for deletion was because roman auxiliary forts, roman legionary forts, roman fortified camps, roman mileforts, are all castra, castra applies to all of them, making roman forts wildly unspecific, the breakdown into actual categories makes sense, and as for city planning I have no idea what you are talking about. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep until everything is recategorised. I would expect most forts to be auxiliary ones. I would suggest that these be purged of legionary forts and small installations like mile castles and signal stations. After that this the subcategory can be merged and this one deleted or merged. This needs to be the end of the process, not the start. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron: Actually the vast majority of them are legionary forts, as auxiliaries rarely got their own fort, and legionary takes precedence over auxiliary, but we still have a category for it, also I cannot really understand what you are talking about, and almost all of it has already been re-categorized, I should be done by today or tomorrow.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 22:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Peterkingiron: It is done, every article in it or its subfolders has been tagged appropriately, based on whether it is a legionary, auxiliary fort, or else fortified camp. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly (do I?), nominator has manually added all (relevant) articles of this category and its subcats to the far older tree of Category:Roman legionary fortresses. That could have been achieved more efficiently with a merge nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: the problem with that is as mentioned above, fort is too broad a term, I didn't just slap a legionary fortress category on it, I read the article and put it in the category it belonged in, ie auxiliary fort, fortified camp, etc . Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, while I think this has procedurally been quite confusing to most of us (because normally we discuss something before we undertake action), I suppose this nomination is worth supporting. By the way, I've notified the category creator to also hear about their perspective. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: if you support it you should make a Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still oppose -- While the majority of forts in number are probably auxiliary, it is likely that most are NN, so that I am prepared to believe that the majority of those categorised were legionary. However, the whole tree needs to be recategorised. If we just delete this, we will be left with partially orphaned categories. I sampled Egypt, where Cusae has a legionary connection, but it is not clear to me whether it was a legionary fortress or a colonia of its veterans. The Romanian subcat has a large number of "castra" most of which are stub articles, and were almost certainly mostly auxiliary. The England category appears all auxiliary, but the Wales (which has anachronistically been split into the current counties etc) and Scotland ones contain both. The nom says that he has sorted them, but I am not convinced that he has yet. He needs to start at the bottom and rename the national subcategories, purging as necessary, and adding them to a new tree. When that has been done, it may be appropriate to make this a container category, or delete it, but not yet. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
Peterkingiron:, the Category:Roman military fortifications contains a bunch of categories that i listed that supersedes the ancient forts, then all of them are broken down by country. I fail to see where your objection is. as for cusae, it says it was the settlement of Legio II Flavia Constantia, making it a fort, if it were a colonia it would say so. I fail to see what your argument is, and also very little of england is auxiliary, as I previously mentioned it is very rare for auxiliary only forts to exist alone, usually they are with a legion, making them legionary forts or camps.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong about auxiliary forts to be rare. Almost all the forts in England were manned by non-legionary (i.e. auxiliary) units. You need to start off you ensuring that all the articles on the tree have a category, according to what you are proposing. Then nominate the national forts categories for deletion (or renaming). When you have removed all those we can consider the present nom. Nominating a grandparent category alone is liable to leave the child categories orphaned or without an appropriate parent. I do not know about Cusae, but the term "settlement" is ambiguous and might refer to a fort or a colonia; the word suggests to me the latter, but I do not know. IN UK, I think York may have had both, but otherwise they are mutually exclusive. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Order of the Smile
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete, upmerge. Single-item category, after deletion of its subcategory of recipients. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and deletion of subcat. Neutrality talk 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- 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; merge contents to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: A "category" of two? Anmccaff ( talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff ( talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania. Having a city-specific category doesn't add anything here. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 01:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (i.e., upmerge) - subcat impedes rather than facilitates navigation here. Neutrality talk 04:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge as others have suggested. This is much to specific and is unlikely to get well-populated. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Armories on the National Register of Historic Places in Pennsylvania.-- Pubdog ( talk) 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:James McCartney
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Album articles have been placed in recently created Category:James McCartney albums category. Contents also include parents when 1) they are mentioned in the James McCartney article and 2) all 3 articles can be found in Category:McCartney family. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:WFMU DJs
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:WFMU DJs into Category:American radio DJs
- Nominator's rationale: The general state of being an Category:American radio DJs is an appropriately WP:DEFINING characteristic -- but subcategorizing them by individual station that they happened to be DJs on is a WP:PERFCAT violation. Bearcat ( talk) 17:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Religion by region and continent
- 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 as originally nominated.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion by region and continent to Category:Religion by continent and region
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by continent and not by region. Wwikix ( talk) 16:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support – the convention is that 'Category:Foo by A and B' parses as 'Category:(Foo by A) by B'. Oculi ( talk) 09:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:Religion by region by continent. Wwikix ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support original nomination. The current standard is as nominated. If the current standard is not clear enough there should be a wider nomination to change that. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Religion by country and region
- 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 as originally nominated. That appears to be the standard in categories right now.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion by country and region to Category:Religion by region and country
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by region and not by country. Wwikix ( talk) 16:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:Religion by country by region. Wwikix ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Religion by country and continent
- 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 as originally nominated. That appears to be the standard in categories right now.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Religion by country and continent to Category:Religion by continent and country
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by continent and not by country. Wwikix ( talk) 16:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:Religion by country by continent. Wwikix ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People by religion and continent
- 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 as originally nominated. That appears to be the standard in categories right now.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People by religion and continent to Category:People by continent and religion
- Nominator's rationale: Categorized by continent and not by religion Wwikix ( talk) 16:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- On seconds thoughts I doubt if I am right. Maybe it should be Category:People by religion by continent. Wwikix ( talk) 17:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Somalian linguists
- 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: not merged. (
non-admin closure)
SST
flyer 05:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Somalian linguists into Category:Somali linguists
- Nominator's rationale: Correct demonym Pwolit iets ( talk) 16:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose all – subcats of Category:Somalian people. Oculi ( talk) 11:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Somali linguists could also mean linguists of the Somali language. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. This should follow the name format of Category:Somalian people. If that head category is renamed, then this should be as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Somalian people by occupation
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian people by occupation to Category:Somali people by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian physicians to Category:Somali physicians
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian educators to Category:Somali educators
- Propose renaming Category:Somalian designers to Category:Somali designers
- Nominator's rationale: This is the correct demonym both in the native language and in scholarly English languages. The addition of a suffix -an seems to be a confused conflation of neighboring African place names.
I also propose renaming the subcategories.Pwolit iets ( talk) 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Two previous discussions, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 12 § Category:Somali people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 14 § Category:Somalian culture, may provide some insightful background on this topic. Rebb ing 12:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note Subcategories not tagged or listed here. Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – the present name was chosen at cfd in 2010, to resolve problems between ethnicity and nationality. In any case the nom has to start with Category:Somalian people; exactly this rename was proposed at cfd on 14 Aug 2016 and did not achieve consensus. Oculi ( talk) 11:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now. These should follow the head category, which is currently Category:Somalian people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Unitarian Universalist 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Unitarian Universalist churches to Category:Unitarian Universalist places of worship
- Propose renaming Category:Unitarian Universalist churches in the United States to Category:Unitarian Universalist places of worship in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada to Category:Unitarian Universalist places of worship in Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Current title is not neutral because UU also have practises associated with shrines, monasteries, mosques, synagogues and temples among others. Also, some of the worship places are not even named churches, but rather meeting house etc.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 06:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- It would be biased to describe UU as incorporating merely churchy aspects into their religiosity since members practise rituals associated with numerous non-Christian and even non-Abrahamic religions. Pwolit iets ( talk) 16:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wait with the rename until the category actually contains a reasonable amount of non-church places of worship. Which is not the case yet. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thats incorrect because it is the case now. For example some of the names derive from its status as a Christian denomination prior to its emergence as a separate religion, but its congregations nonetheless have diverged sufficiently since then. Also, some of the pages in the subcategories that were established post the 1961 consolidation specifically specify with alternate titles, see for example in North Carolina, Alaska, Indiania.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority is still called Unitarian Universalist Church.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Only capitalized. None are uncapitalized/lower-case. Pwolit iets ( talk) 06:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The vast majority is still called Unitarian Universalist Church.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thats incorrect because it is the case now. For example some of the names derive from its status as a Christian denomination prior to its emergence as a separate religion, but its congregations nonetheless have diverged sufficiently since then. Also, some of the pages in the subcategories that were established post the 1961 consolidation specifically specify with alternate titles, see for example in North Carolina, Alaska, Indiania.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 22:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -- The vast majority of the articles in the US state-level categories are called "church", which has the merits of brevity. A few are "chapel" or"society", but strictly a "society" is probably not a"place of worship" either. The denomination may aspire to bring in places of worship of other religions, but I see no sign of that having succeeded among the articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is capitalized/upercase though, and those titles typically derive from their designation prior to the 1961 consolidation. Secondly, the word church has a very specific definition. Since UU gatherings do not fit the conventional definition of a church, Wikipedia would be misleading readers and in a nutshell would contain incorrect info.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 09:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, brevity is not a valid option if the brevity option is not synonymous. No other
syncretic religion is described as a church on Wikipedia - UU shouldn't be an exception. This would set a very bad precedent of misusing the English language.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- The category does not imply they are a church, it only implies that they are using churches.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. If a church starts only offering Friday prayers for Muslims, then it is no longer a church but a mosque. Similarly, if a church starts offering only NRM services its similarly distinct.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then RS will (probably) start referring to it as a mosque, so that's not a good analogy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. There's a tendency for American sources to treat ambiguous religious worship sites as churches. Take for example a look at polls done by even reputable think tanks wherein a generalized religious survey is followed up with references only to churches, whereas synagogues etc. are ignored. This is not the case with UK think tanks or pollsters. This is probably due to the ubiquity of Christianity in America, hence this incorrect slant in the naming of worship sites.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 06:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia guidelines allows for incorrect information to be present in articles due to our verifiability WP:NOTTRUTH guidelines. The same does not hold true for categories, so our categories should hold some semblance of factuality. Pwolit iets ( talk) 06:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. There's a tendency for American sources to treat ambiguous religious worship sites as churches. Take for example a look at polls done by even reputable think tanks wherein a generalized religious survey is followed up with references only to churches, whereas synagogues etc. are ignored. This is not the case with UK think tanks or pollsters. This is probably due to the ubiquity of Christianity in America, hence this incorrect slant in the naming of worship sites.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 06:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Then RS will (probably) start referring to it as a mosque, so that's not a good analogy.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense. If a church starts only offering Friday prayers for Muslims, then it is no longer a church but a mosque. Similarly, if a church starts offering only NRM services its similarly distinct.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- The category does not imply they are a church, it only implies that they are using churches.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, brevity is not a valid option if the brevity option is not synonymous. No other
syncretic religion is described as a church on Wikipedia - UU shouldn't be an exception. This would set a very bad precedent of misusing the English language.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 18:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is capitalized/upercase though, and those titles typically derive from their designation prior to the 1961 consolidation. Secondly, the word church has a very specific definition. Since UU gatherings do not fit the conventional definition of a church, Wikipedia would be misleading readers and in a nutshell would contain incorrect info.
Pwolit iets (
talk) 09:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:NONDEF, articles in this category aren't about globalization and/or aren't about theories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. I think the nom is mostly correct, but the
world systems theory article and its subcategory are a kind of globalization theory. If this cat is deleted, those two should be upmerged to
Category:Globalization. --
Mark viking (
talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional Support. I think the nom is mostly correct, but the
world systems theory article and its subcategory are a kind of globalization theory. If this cat is deleted, those two should be upmerged to
Category:Globalization. --
Mark viking (
talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a hotchpotch of stuff most of which is not about globalisation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.