Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.46.197.50 (talk) at 14:48, 23 January 2007 (→Category:Genocide deniers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 17 January 19 >

January 18

Category:Genocide deniers

Category:Genocide deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Pure POV, and intended for those who deny the Armenian Genocide. Note that in addition to being proposed here, it must be removed from living people articles immediately, per WP:BLP. —Ashley Y 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Xdamrtalk 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There can be a Holocaust deniers category but not genocide deniers? Why is that? Because the Armenian genocide is merely an Armenian allegation? That is still POV on your part, Ashley. But how is a Genocide deniers category (I don't see Armenian mentioned anywhere) pure POV? There are plenty of other genocide deniers who could be added to that list, many of whom are not even associated with the Armenian genocide. Are you perhaps a protege or admirer of Bernard Lewis and upset that his name was justly included in this category? Hakob 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's POV to call someone a "genocide denier" when the details of what they said vs. the available facts are always particular. In the case of a living person, it will almost always be contrary to WP:BLP. And I know nothing about and have no interest in whether the Armenian whatever was genocide or not. I'm not a particular fan of Lewis either. —Ashley Y 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, meaningless POV category. It fails to specify what genocide someone is "denying," and will inevitably equivocate legitimate historical positions on certain purported genocides with untenable and extremist minority positions on well documented ones. "Holocaust denier," by contrast, is the common term to refer to the deniers of a particular genocide, so the existence of that category by no means provides support for this. Postdlf 05:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Armenian Genocide deniers. I would like to see anyone call for the deletion of that.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you mean "people who deny the Armenian genocide", but that name reads like "Armenian people who deny a genocide". Tricky, no? >Radiant< 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't categorize people for every historical opinion they may have; you'd have to establish that deniers of the Armenian Genocide are of a discrete, identifiable character and significance similar to Holocaust deniers, such that it may be integral to and help define an individual's notability. Postdlf 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there exist such deniers whose notability exist mostly because of the denial, Justin McCarthy is one example, Lowry is another, he only became 'notable' after the paper Jay Lifton wrote on him on the Holocaust and Genocide studies Journal and what led to his 'eviction' from the Ottoman chair of history. Kamuran Gurun is another example. Halacoglu was totally unknown before he became 'notable' exclusivaly for the denial. There is also Eric Feigl, who only became notable for the denial. I don't think those who became notable nealy exclusivally because of denial are in shortage. Fad (ix) 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Baristarim 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. Wimstead 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --A.Garnet 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally oppose to any form of list of people denying genocide, including the Holocaust denial, since it seems to be a target list, but since Wikipedians find it OK in one case, than renaming would be a better option. On the other hand, only obvious deniers who are clearly deniers should be included. Those include Lowry, Lewy, McCarthy, Gurun, etc., but not scholars such as Zurcher. Scholars like Zurcher are not deniers. What I propose for now, is deleting the page for the time being, working on the Armenian genocide denial page, with a section from the official position on what is considered as Armenian genocide denial, so that such a cathegory is clarified as to what is Armenian genocide denial to then creat the page. Fad (ix) 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a category that just sits there begging to be abused and misused. Pinoakcourt 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or change. If it means: Deniers of he genocide of Armenians it should be called exactly that. As is, it would logically mean, Deniers of the concept of genocide; there are such scholars, but they don't require a category. I think Faqdix has it right. DGG 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grandmaster 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like someone wants to launch hunting season. And here pray - is just people who fight for freedom of thoughts, for the right to have different opinion.--66.46.197.50 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literature festivals

Propose renaming Category:Literature festivals to Category:Literary festivals

Category:Television protagonists

Category:Television protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wasn't the protagonist category deleted as being too vague to define. Buffy is a protagonist - is Willow? Every character of Lost? All three sisters on Charmed? Both brothers on Supernatural? Every hero on Heroes? Category adds little value, a character's relevance to plot should be handled in the article itself as it is highly dependent on context. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and per prior precedents on other protagonist by media categories, the parent, protagonists, and the related fictional antagonists. To the extent that any given character within a specific work of fiction can be clearly identified as a protagonist, this won't always remain stable for characters used in serial works or other multiple works (such as Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, Willow from Buffy, or supervillains like Deadpool or Venom who were the protagonists of their own comic book title), and it's useless and uninformative to lump all of these together. "Oooh, Andy Sipowicz was a television protagonist. I wonder what other characters functioned as protagonists in the history of television." Postdlf 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to characters sliding between functioning as a protagonist or antagonist, other characters may be supporting in some works, but the lead protagonist in others; weren't there Star Trek novels just about Sulu? See also The Zeppo. "Protagonist" is just too context dependent to function as a category. Postdlf 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the many previous deletions of "hero" and "villain" and "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories. Otto4711 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very similar to other villain/hero categories that have been routinely deleted as being too subjective. Dugwiki 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patent Medicines

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved to CfD speedy rename section. David Kernow (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patent Medicines renamed to Category:Patent medicines
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian_Forces

Category:Canadian_Forces into Category:Military_of_Canada
Yes, but how do we then categorise topics relating to the RCN, RCAF, etc? Subcategorisation is no bad thing thing—Category:Military of the United Kingdom does something similar for the Army, RN, and RAF. --Xdamrtalk 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying about the CF being a distinct entity from any of the services that preceded it, and I agree with you that those services should have their own categories. One can talk about the RCAF without involving the rest of the military; however, the opposite is not true. "The CF" means all three elements and their collective histories together, and it is at that point that the distinction between "articles that pertain to The CF" and "articles about Canada's military" seems to blur. Flakeloaf 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 70.51.8.140. Since the 1968 unification, the 'Canadian Forces' represent a separate and distinct element of the 'Military of Canada'. 'Canadian Forces', in the case of this category, is used in a formal sense—representing the present-day, unified Canadian military. This is not a case of colloquial usage, a usage synonymous with 'Military of Canada'. Xdamrtalk 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then this is a category for post-unification topics alone? Does the historical context needed to thoroughly describe these topics not exceed the limitations of cat:CF? Flakeloaf 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So "Canadian Forces" is not to "Military of Canada" as "United States Armed Forces" is to "Military of the United States"? Postdlf 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not exactly. Xdamr correctly points out that "Canadian Forces" refers to our military as it is today, whereas "Military of Canada" encompasses all topics relating to any of Canada's armed forces over the country's entire history (including pre-Westminster engagements, which would overlap with cat:Military of the UK). My contention is that cat:CF may be too limited a subset of cat:MoC to merit its own category. Flakeloaf 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "Canadian Forces" are the single unified service in Canada, so saying "Canadian Forces" would be more like saying "US Army" if there were no seperate Navy, Airforce or Marines in the US. MCG 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's right, it is not—the 'Canadian Forces' are a unified amalgam of the old Canadian army, RCN, and RCAF. There is no longer such a thing as the Royal Canadian Navy, instead we have the maritime element of the Canadian Forces, and so on. 'Canadian Forces' is the single and sole fighting institution in Canada.
This isn't a precedent that has been copied by any of the major world militaries, so it probably looks a little strange. Of course, whether it was a good thing for Canada to do is another question...
Xdamrtalk 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having marched in a few purple trade parades I've often asked myself the same question :). Flakeloaf 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically this category only excludes historical or defunct military units and topics, but is otherwise synonymous with "military of Canada"? Postdlf 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as these topics do not relate to the modern institution of the Canadian Forces, then yes, they are excluded. --Xdamrtalk 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But as there is Category:Military history of Canada to separate out anything that is not current, I'm not seeing the benefit of a category just for what the military is presently named, as it would contain anything in the military category that is not in the military history subcategory, correct? Because of this, I think it should be merged. Postdlf 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Military_of_Canada should contain both the historical and the current. Therefore, it can include both Category:Military history of Canada and Category:Canadian Forces. MCG 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than proposing this merger, I think it would be far more productive to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force (where Canadian military categories are being discussed) and propose content guidelines to help define where things belong. MCG 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Straths and glens

Propose renaming Category:Straths and glens to Category:Valleys of Scotland
  • Rename: for consistency with other "valleys of" categories; because the category is hard to find for people who aren't aware of Scotland's specific terminology; and because not every valley in Scotland is called a strath or a glen. Blisco 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename: with reservations, amd certainly not "Valleys of Scotland". Glens of Scotland would be preferable. "Valley" is not a term that is used in Scotland with the exception of a few instances in the Borders eg Ettrick Valley. This is only because of the historic consanguinuity of people of the the Borderland and its effect on language there. "Dale" as in Liddesdale and in the far North, as in Berriedale are loanwords from Old Norse. The vast majority of so called valleys in Scotland are referred to as "Glen", irrespective of whether that is their official name. Compare Lochs of Scotland, there are only three bodies of water called lake, the Lake of Menteith, Pressmennan Lake, and the Lake of the Hirsel all in the Lowlands, and these are usually just referred to locally as "the Loch". Although the traditional meaning of Glen means Steepsided, as opposed to a wide shallow Strath, it is common parlance to refer to all such geographical features as "The Glen", both Lowland where there are few Strath-names, and in the Highlands. Brendandh 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: regardless of what specific valleys are called, "valley" is a universal geographical term that any geographer describing such a glen or strath would use. Strath Spey may not be a Valley but it's still a valley. All over the British Isles, not just in Scotland, the names of valleys, lakes, streams etc. typically incorporate a local word for the feature in question (Dale, Tarn, Burn, Brook and so on) - but in terms of geographical categorisation they're still valleys, lakes and streams. --Blisco 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. As per Blisco the names of indidivual whatevers aren't really the issue. Twittenham 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, with caveat. Not all straths and glens are in Scotland. If places like Strath-Taieri are included in this category, they should be removed before renaming takes place. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would happen as a matter of course – part of the process of renaming a category is editing all the categorised articles and changing the name. --Blisco 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, apparently it's all done by bots, so non-Scottish members would have to be removed manually. --Blisco 10:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename with Grutness's caveat. Mais oui!'s argument would be reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that it's hard enough to find the right category, and non-standard naming just makes it that much harder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Wimstead 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Glens of Scotland per Brendandh. Who, I wonder, would be confused by this? Re Blisco's comment, I might just as easily say "they're still glens, lochs and burns." I note with amusement that Blisco is in the cat: 'Fells of the Lake District'. Shouldn't that be 'Bens', or 'Hills of the Lake District' or something in common usage? Better still let's categorise all UK watercourses as creeks - or is it inappropriate to make these decisions purely based on the volume of Wikipedians who might habitually use the words as opposed to the almost universal usage in the location under consideration? Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Mais oui!, but if renamed, my support would go to Glens of Scotland as per Brendandh et al. Using "valleys of Scotland" is a bit like saying "America's favourite colours" (sic) — perhaps correct linguistically, but against common sense, and liable to cause future problems and repeated reversions. – Kieran T (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: as "valleys" is unlikely to gain consensus, I'd be happy with Glens of Scotland, providing we're agreed that "glen" can be used a generic term for any Scottish valley. This is not about imposing an alien variety of English, it's about categorising geographical features by geographical rather than toponymic criteria. (By the same token I'd favour merging Lakes of Scotland into Lochs of Scotland.) The word "glen" is at least moderately well known outside/outwith Scotland, more so than "strath", I think. (This is more significant than you might think: imagine a non-Scot looking for articles on Scottish valleys, who makes their way to Geography of Scotland. They look under "V" and find nothing... so where do they look next? If they haven't given up by this point, they'll most probably look under "G".) Whatever the category is called, the "of Scotland" bit is necessary so as to exclude the likes of Strath-Taieri, which belongs somewhere like Geography of New Zealand and not in a sub-category of Valleys of the United Kingdom. --Blisco 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Valleys of Scotland for international intelligibility. Sumahoy 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional narcissists

Category:Fictional narcissists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, hopelessly subjective and vague, and inextricably OR. The category includes a list of supposed traits these characters share, but it just equivocates all characters that show any degree of vanity, arrogance, ambition, or simply childish self-absorption; nowhere else on earth would you find Macbeth lumped in with Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes and the holographic Doctor from Star Trek: Voyager.
Lest someone argue that a precise definition could be arrived at, it will still always be completely unstable and meaningless without context, as an intra-textual comparison to other characters in the same work to judge who is narcissistic will yield different results than an inter-textual comparison between characters of different works (everyone in Beverly Hills: 90210 is probably narcissistic by the standards of Little House on the Prairie, even if not intended as such within that show).
This is regrettably the third nomination for this category, the previous two having ended "no consensus" despite the complete failure of the largely unelaborated and often irrelevant "keep" comments to address any of the criticisms raised. This should instead follow the deletion precedents on similar character-by-personality trait categories, such as promiscuous fictional characters or hyperactive fictional characters. Postdlf 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- so add Narcissus to the category, lazy-ass.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.124.166 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per POV problems. Just for pro forma purpose, note the two previous CFDs for this category, here and here. Otto4711
  • Keep - STOP DELETING EVERY FICTIONAL CHARACTER CATEGORY!!! Anyway, if you didn't manage to get rid of it the first two times, what makes you think that it will go away this time? - Ndrly 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is the third nomination of this category. Each nomination has been made by a different person. This demonstrates that the category has problems. If this category is kept, it needs changes. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This category requires making subjective judgments about the characters, which clearly runs into POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 10:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete riddled with WP:OR and will always be POV. The Rambling Man 13:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was disgusted that this received no consensus. Shouldn't the invalid "I like this category" votes for keep simply have not been counted on account of them failing to make a point which counters any votes to delete? ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the criteria listed mentions "Takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends". So every politician, bussinesperson and quite a number of soldiers are valid for inclusion? User:Dimadick
  • Delete, waaaaay too subjective. Recury 17:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely NOT NPOV. --Releeshan 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading the other discussions, I'm a little surprised the result was "no consensus". Either way, though, the question of whether or not a character is a narcissist is subjective. Where do you draw the line between being a narcissist, being egotistical, or simply being overconfident of your abilities? What about fictional characters who say they are "the best" and are right? Seems like deciding whether or not someone is a narcissist is too open to debate. (The same argument would apply to a list article of narcissists too, so I'd be against listifying). Dugwiki 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Didn't we already delete this phenomenally subjective category at least twice already? Doczilla 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Seeing as the term "Narcissist" refers to an actual mental disorder, perhaps it would be prudent to re-name the category "Fictional egomaniacs."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.35 (talk • contribs)
  • That's just as POV, if not worse. The sociopath, narcissist and psychopath categories only survived this long because they sound vaguely professional but are in fact no less POV than "fictional overeaters" or "hyperactive fictional characters".~ZytheTalk to me! 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, two more categories that shouldn't have been deleted. Pretty soon they'll be saying "Fictional characters with the power to shapeshift" is too subjective to define. Who renamed that anyway? "Fictional characters with the power to shapeshift" is much harder to say than just "Fictional shapeshifters." But I digress. The point is, Fictional egomaniacs is much easier to define than Fictional narcissists because it just means someone who loves or has an inflated opinion of themselves. For instance people like Hyacinth Bucket or Cutler Beckett. Anon (let no-one say my comment was unsigned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ "Anon" is not an acceptable signature because it doesn't identify under what account a post was made. It would also be best if you registered an account to get a stable identity rather than a shifting IP address.
  • So how do you identify when a fictional character has an "inflated" self-opinion? Postdlf 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they don't care for anyone but themselves. And they think they're so good, but seriously, they suck. Anything else I could list? - Ndrly 06:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:C.D. Chivas USA

Propose renaming Category:C.D. Chivas USA to Category:Chivas USA

Category:Barbadian telecommunications companies

Propose renaming Category:Barbadian telecommunications companies to Category:Telecommunications companies of Barbados
Propose renaming Category:Communications companies of Barbados to

Category:Telecommunications companies of Barbados

Category:Banburyshire Schools

Merge into Category:Schools in Oxfordshire, or Rename to Category:Schools in Banbury. -- Prove It (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shows on Turner Classic Movies

Rename to Category:Turner Classic Movies shows, convention of Category:Television series by network. -- Prove It (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations

Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - The category is based on a vaguely-stated arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization. Should this include churches where over 50% of the people are African American, 75% African American, or 90% African American? It is unclear, nor should such an inclusion limit be applied. Dr. Submillimeter 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List can be maintained on appropriate article. Xiner (talk, email) 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. This is a very useful category. This is not an arbitrary grouping; the groups listed predominantly African American denominations much like the historically black colleges and universities, for which we have a category: Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States. Look through every denomination in the cat and you'll see that, whether s/he likes the fact of not, most of them hardly have any members who are not African American. Thus, the category is relevant and accurate. Please take your work elsewhere and improve Wikipedia rather than trying to deplete it, thanks. Badagnani 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename to something like Category:Historically African American Christian denominations. We categorize other people and things which are "historically African American" (or "Black," as the case may be). See:Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States, for example. "Predominantly" IS too vague. But all the denominations included in this cat WOULD consider themselves HISTORICALLY African American, and proud of it! Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rename is clearly warranted. This suggested rename is better than the current category title. I am willing to change my vote, but I want to let the discussion continue before making a vote change. Dr. Submillimeter 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, why not do a bit of research? Are you averse to this? From my experience, these denominations actually are called "Predominantly African American (or Black) Christian Denominations"; the universities are called "Historically..." "Traditionally" might sometimes also be used. Since you're the nominator, why not do a quick Google search to see the relative frequency of all of these permutations, then we'll use the term that is most widely used rather than making up a term that you somehow think is "better." Badagnani 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful and important category, but we do need a better name for it. In the UK, these seem to be called simply "Black Churches" (or "Black-led Churches"), but that isn't terminiology I much like, nor does it fit with current American terminology. Unless someone can come up with a better idea, I suggest dropping the word "predominantly" and calling these "African American Christian denominations", with an explanation in the category text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Keep Although I think Black church or "the black church", in some cases, is more often used even in the US. Still "black church" might mean different things in other countries or imply something not intended and unhelpful. As is seems fine.--T. Anthony 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, arbitrary inclusino limit. You cannot objectively define what "predominantly" means. >Radiant< 08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this would seem more of an argument for renaming, not deletion. In fact, these denominations have few if any non-African Americans. The category is neither arbitrary nor subjective. Thus, the argument raised shows ignorance of the subject. I would ask that editors please not vote unless you have first carefully considered the issue and read through the relevant articles. The editor above clearly has done neither. Badagnani 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clergy of predominantly African American Christian denominations

Category:Clergy of predominantly African American Christian denominations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Korean phrases

Category:Korean phrases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We already have Category:Korean words and phrases. Wikipeditor 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous laws

Category:Eponymous laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:St Bartholomew School of Nursing & Midwifery

Delete, only one member, and it's a strub. -- Prove It (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tahirids

Propose renaming : I think Category:Tahirid dynasty is better because the other dynasty categorie are like that as in Category:Afsharid dynasty , Category:Achaemenid dynasty , Category:Sassanid dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soroush83 (talk • contribs)

Category:Settlements by region

Propose renaming Category:Settlements by region to Category:Populated places by region
Also, all of the Category:Settlements in ... to Category:Populated places in ....
  • Rename, According to Wiktionary, 'settlement' means "A colony newly established; a place or region newly settled."[1] 'Settlement' also carries some political baggage because of its use in Israeli settlement. 'Populated places' is a more descriptive and neutral term for, uh..., populated places. Donald Albury 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how to include all of the 'Settlements in ...' categories, but almost of all of them need to be covered by whatever decision is made here. There are a few categories in the tree that probably should not be renamed, such as Category:Israeli settlements, but almost all of the existing categories with 'settlement' in the name are misusing the word. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The meaning of 'settlement' is not confined to a colony or place newly settled. If Wiktionary suggests this then it is incorrect. According to my paper dictionary here, 'settlement' encompasses any collection of dwellings which form a community.
I've no view on the Israeli connection, it certainly doesn't seem a compelling reason to rename in my view—other editors might think differently. However 'populated places' seems vaguely clumsy and seems to subtly shift the emphasis in a way which I can't quite put my finger on, but which seems to me to be wrong.
Xdamrtalk 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, my paper dictionary (the only one of mine that I'm able to check at the moment) has a definition of 'settlement' which encompasses this usage. The relevant part of the definition is as follows:
Settlement (n)
...
8. A collection of dwellings forming a community, esp. on a frontier.
...
(Taken from the Collins English Dictionary (HarperCollins, 2000)).
Xdamrtalk 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm kind of agnostic about renaming the category, as I don't think "settlement" is the single catch-all phrase for the entire tree of articles that it covers now. But at the same time, "populated place" isn't all that much better. I might note that the United Nations Human Settlements Programme [2] seems to use the term settlement subsume all sizes of human habitats within its scope. However, right now the hierarchy is somewhat confused by mixing together actual settlements with administrative/political subdivisions. It's not a huge problem, but for example, some townships would quite easily fit under the rubric of either settlement or populated place, but there are also quite a lot of other townships for which that is simply a bizarre distortion. older ≠ wiser 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missionaries by denomination

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries by denomination to Category:Christian missionaries by denomination

Category:American Free Methodist bishops

Category:American Free Methodist bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary subcat of Category:Free Methodist bishops, which has only 14 members (this subdivision contains only 4 articles). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missionaries to Hawaii

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to Hawaii to Category:Christian missionaries in Hawaii

Category:Missionaries to California

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to California to Category:Christian missionaries in the United States

Category:United States National Guard soldiers

Propose renaming Category:United States National Guard soldiers to Category:Enlisted personnel of the United States Army National Guard

Category:Roman Catholics musicians

As it's empty and redundant with Category:Roman Catholic musicians. The creator of it's only 15 years old so I'm guessing it's just an accident.--T. Anthony 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! You might be the first person to realize that what I nominated was Category:Roman Catholics musicians for being empty and redundant. I did not nominate Category:Roman Catholic musicians and I fear now it'll be nominated by some overzealous person terrified by "overcategorization."--T. Anthony 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated Category:Roman Catholics musicians for deletion. Thank you for pointing out the oversight. Dr. Submillimeter 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote, but again this isn't really about that. I just nominated this as redundant and misspelled. It's more like a procedural thing. Maybe I should've put this on speedy delete, but the only speedy deal we seem to have for categories is "rename."--T. Anthony 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Referendum

Propose renaming Category:Referendum to Category:Referenda
  • Relisting. Relisting nomination from 1 January. The vote was two for Referenda, with maybe one additional, and two for Referendums. Worth trying to see if we can get consensus for one of these two since there was a clear consensus to rename. As a side note, my spell checker only likes Referendums. Vegaswikian 08:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Referenda
  1. Support Referenda. - Kittybrewster 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Referenda. TonyTheTiger 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Referenda. It is the correct linguistic and grammatical form, and it is used regularly by the BBC and many major newspapers. Baristarim 11:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Referendums
  1. Rename to Category:Referendums, which is the more correct plural. Timrollpickering 09:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I'm naturally inclined towards 'referenda', however taking a look at Referendum I see that the OED deprecates this for what appear to be soundish reasons. Therefore I (somewhat reluctantly) support 'referendums'. :Xdamrtalk 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rename to Referendums, which is more common and thus what should be used here. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Referendums per OED. Recury 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rename to Referendums, per OED, although like Xdamr I was surprised to discover that I've been engaging in a hyperforeignism all these years. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referendum comments
Presumably it stems from an assumption that it follows the 'Stadium'/'Stadia' plural form - that was certainly my initial response until I learned that I was probably wrong. --Xdamrtalk 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked up one or two paper dictionaries and have found both 'referenda' and 'referendums' listed. Undoubtedly the OED is correct, but I suppose the 'erroneous' spelling has achieved some sort of validity through generations of mistaken usage.
Xdamrtalk 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singers by religion

Delete all as intersection by irrelevent religion. -- Prove It (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Merge/Rename per T. Anthony's nom. NDCompuGeek 11:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know enough Sikh, Muslim and Hindu religions to comment on whether they should be merged. However, I will say that there are very likely good candidates for singers whose religious beliefs directly influences their singing profession. Pretty much anybody who is a gospel singer, for example, or a Christian rock band, would appropriately qualify as a "Christian musician" since their beliefs directly impact their music. Therefore articles about the Muslim equivalent of gospel singers or religious bands would also qualify to be categorized as "Muslim singers". What would not qualify would be a singer who happens to be religious but whose music isn't really affected by that. Michael Jackson and his siblings were raised as Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, but his music has nothing to do with that belief, so he shouldn't be classified as a "Christian singer". Dugwiki 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My initial position was that there probably is Sikh or Muslim or Hindu equivalents of Christian music so these should just stay. However we don't have Category:Christian singers, instead we have Category:Christian musicians. So I'm thinking that as Category:Hindu musicians and Category:Muslim musicians aren't overcrowded they can take in the names from here. Why Category:Sikh singers was the only thing for Sikh music is probably because Sikhs are a much smaller religion so it didn't go by standard.--T. Anthony 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; the categories are generically named without any qualifiers, and so fail to limit themselves to only those for whom this is actually a meaningful relationship, which requires annotation and/or citation to explain. Simply lumping together every singer or musician from all of recorded history who happens to have self-identified as a Muslim, etc., without regard to the style or themes of their music, is random trivia. Postdlf 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the above problem, though, can be corrected by updating the category's description and deleting inappropriate articles, or possibly renaming the category if desired. It wouldn't require deleting the category entirely. Dugwiki 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incorporated areas in Florida

Merge into Category:Settlements in Florida, convention of Category:Settlements in the United States by state. -- Prove It (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters from McLeod's Daughters

Rename to Category:McLeod's Daughters characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ApMasterSite

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a category -- Prove It (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:4A window

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, misplaced article and spam to boot. Postdlf 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a category ... -- Prove It (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional bald characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted and salted. >Radiant< 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Salt, see also Category:Fictional characters by hair color, and discussion of December 20th. -- Prove It (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_18&oldid=102670498"