Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Olympic competitors by nation and year[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was upmerge all. the wub "?!" 10:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These cats are all overcategorization by intersection. Competing in the Olympics in a specific year is categorizable (see Category:Olympic competitors by year), as is the nation for which one competes (Category:Olympic competitors by country). The intersections for 1908 are the only ones remaining. Previous related CFDs are here, and here.

These should all be upmerged to Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics as well as the individual nation cats, noted below

Category:Competitors for Argentina at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Argentina
Category:Competitors for Australasia at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Australasia
Category:Competitors for Austria at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Austria
Category:Competitors for Belgium at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Belgium
Category:Competitors for Denmark at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Denmark
Category:Competitors for Finland at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Finland
Category:Competitors for Germany at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Germany
Category:Competitors for Greece at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Greece
Category:Competitors for Hungary at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Hungary
Category:Competitors for Italy at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Italy
Category:Competitors for the Netherlands at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for the Netherlands
Category:Competitors for Norway at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Norway
Category:Competitors for South Africa at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for South Africa
Category:Competitors for Sweden at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to year cat above, and Category:Olympic competitors for Sweden
  • Upmerge all per nom. Neier 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom. -- Prove It (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all trivial OCAT per nom, TewfikTalk 09:22, 7 September 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 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:Iqbal scholars[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep. After Midnight 0001 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iqbal scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. This category is on too narrow a subject to be viable. Beit Or 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needless to say, we have Category:Shakespeare academia and doubtless others. Johnbod 21:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Muhammad Iqbal was the national poet of Pakistan and the author of India's national song. He is of remarkable importance to South Asian culture. I am not sure what Beit Or trying to imply here. Hornplease 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that there are academies dedicated to work of Iqbal in Pakistan and in UK, and there are several significant hits on Google Books and Google scholar for this exact term (I did not search for variants), the category is useful and not too narrow. Abecedare 23:26, 31 August 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 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:Calvinist artists and writers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. After Midnight 0001 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Calvinist artists and writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A trivial intersection of occupation by religion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. There is no such thing as Calvinist art, Calvinist music, or Calvinist literature. If kept, the category should be renamed Category:Calvinist writers and the musicians (all of the artists are actually singers and songwriters) removed. I think a stronger case for non-trivial intersection can be made for writers than singers. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Otto4711 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think we can justify an article on "Calvinist Art" (google for it and note the JSTOR references). We could perhaps dispute whether certain persons belong in this category, but I don't think the category warrants deletion. This cat is a subcat of Category:Calvinists by occupation, and its members are distinguished from authors of works of Calvinist theology, philosophy, etc. Black Falcon seems to be saying that singers and songwriters are not musicians or that musicians are not artists, but this strikes me as untrue. Music is an art, and musicians are artists, regardless of their genre. The people in this cat are (generally speaking) known for their artistic contributions in music, visual art, and literature, which often display, explicate, and incarnate their Calvinistic beliefs (NB, WP:OCAT says, "people should only be categorized by ... religion if this has significant bearing on their careers."). For instance, who but a Calvinist could write a poem/hymn on the perseverance of the saints as Toplady does in "A Debtor to Mercy Alone", and who but a Calvinist could put faith and free will in these terms: "I believe \ 'Cause he made me believe" (Wes King, "I Believe", emphasis added). Moreover, I think the category has considerable room for expansion by adding artists (particularly Dutch artists) who are known for their Calvinist art. If the verdict goes the other way, however, may I request that we put all the people here back into Category:Calvinists. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting that musicians are not artists. However, when it comes to categories, the term "artists" is generally reserved for visual artists; musicians fall under a separate categorisation scheme (Category:Musicians). Even if kept, the category must be split or renamed as it currently brings together writers and artists, which belong under two entirely different categorisation schemes. When I offered the option of renaming to Category:Calvinist writers and removing all musicians, it was not because I don't consider musicians to be artists, but rather that the writers in the category tend to be theologians, so we can expect that their writings are about Calvinism. There is little proof, however, that the same is true of the musicians. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean about splitting it, and that's fine with me. I lumped all artists (in the broad sense) here as a starting point, but I don't object to breaking it out into more specializations if there are enough people to populate such groups. Otherwise, I don't have a problem leaving it as is (and renaming it if you feel something else would communicate better). As far as writers, many of these folks do write theology and philosophy in addition to their more literary endeavors (e.g., Horatius Bonar has a number of theological works in addition to his many hymns). As far as the content being about Calvinism, I'm not sure how a poem could much more about it than is the one by Toplady that I cited above (it deals with one of the five points of Calvinism, after all). It's a poem but it is on a religious subject and has a definitively Calvinistic theological viewpoint. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to Calvinist writers, and upmerge the rest to "Calvinists" per Black Falcon. Calvinism was certainly a big influence on Dutch art, but one it is very difficult to match to individual artists, a rather large number of whom were either Catholic or belonged to other Protestant groups. But there are none in the category anyway. John Bunyan was a Baptist, and cannot really be called a Calvinist. Many Scottish writers could be, but none seem to be in the category. Johnbod 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calvinism is a theological system, not a denomination. There are Presbyterian Calvinists, Methodist Calvinists, Baptist Calvinists, etc., and Bunyan certainly fits as a Calvinistic Baptist and a writer of literature -- most famously, Pilgrim's Progress (cf. Reformed Baptist, London Baptist Confession, Charles Spurgeon, etc., which all discuss some aspect of being Baptist and Calvinistic). As far as Scotsmen, you have overlooked Horatius Bonar. Moreover, there is considerable academic discussion of Calvinist art (e.g., [1], [2], [3], etc.). Admittedly, there is no fully agreed upon definition for the term, but one cannot deny that it is in scholarly use. Hence, I think it's use here is justified. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1 & 3 relate to the Visual arts, which don't seem represented in the category at all. I'm still dubious Baptists count as Calvinists for WP categorisation purposes, any more than Anglo-Catholics count as Catholics. Johnbod 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The visual arts aren't represented yet, but as I suggested above, they should be. That's a place where this cat's membership can be expanded. As for Baptist Calvinists, check out the pages I listed. Also, see Baptist Charles Spurgeon's sermon "A Defense of Calvinism", Baptist John Piper's "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" and "Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism", Baptist John Gill's defense of the five points of Calvinism in The Cause of God and Truth, compare the London Baptist Confession with the Westminster Confession (both are thoroughly Calvinistic, and the former is a slightly modified form of the latter), etc. etc. The Founders Ministries is a part of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) that attempts to call the SBC back to its historic Calvinist roots, and question 7 in this interview on the Founders Blog talks about Calvinism's resurgence in the SBC. There is no serious debate that Baptists can be Calvinists (though certainly not all are). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to Calvinist writers, and upmerge the rest to "Calvinists" per Black and John as a good method of dealing with ambiguity in classifying the artists. TewfikTalk 09:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we go this way, do hymn writers and song writers fall under writers or musicians or both? IOW, Is this group for poets? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hymn and song writers have their own categories, apparently: Category:Hymn writers and Category:Songwriters. – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, but we since hymn writers and poets are a subcat of writers in general, these folks should presumably be listed here rather than in Category:Calvinists since the subcats (Category:Calvinist poets, Category:Calvinist hymnwriters) don't exist in this part of the cat structure and they do qualify as Calvinist writers. The line between hymns and poems is rather vague, after all. (George Herbert, for instance, wrote poems that others set to music after his death.) Further, if we make this just a category for writers in general, most Calvinist ministers and philosophers would be duplicated here. The intent was for this group to be "creative" writers (fiction, poetry, songs, etc.). --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not every biographical article needs to be in a distinct "occupation by religion" category (in fact, most people probably don't). Intersections of religion and occupation are generally not significant and the level of triviality increases as the religion and occupation become narrower. Poets could be placed in Category:Christian poets and it may worth creating a separate Category:Calvinist hymnwriters. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 7 September 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 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:666 Satan[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:666 Satan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcat, eponymous category for 3 articles and a template related to a manga. Vast precedent to delete such categories. Andrew c [talk] 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Everythng in the article is strongly interlinked through text and template; the eponymous category is unwarranted. Otto4711 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and extensive precedent, TewfikTalk 10:04, 7 September 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 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:- 2007 Disciple of Sanjukta Panigrahi, Joyoti Das[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:- 2007 Disciple of Sanjukta Panigrahi, Joyoti Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category makes no sense. I can't figure out what it is intended for. It seems to be for disciples of someone from the year 2007. However, the only person included in the category is Sanjukta Panigrahi, who died ten years ago. I can't quite figure it out, and I doubt our readers could either. If any sense can be made out of this, I would support a possible rename, but if not, delete.Andrew c [talk] 14:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created to link to external website of Joyoti Das on the cat page. Since it probably isnt "patently nonsensical" (who came up with that tortured phrase?) speedying isnt possible here, though it should be.Hornplease 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could be speedied, as is nonsense as a category, that can only ever contain one members, per all above. Johnbod 15:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsensical cruft, TewfikTalk 10:04, 7 September 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 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:Main cities and towns in Nagaland[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Main cities and towns in Nagaland Be merged into Category:Cities and towns in Nagaland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, arbitrary inclusion criterion. Kappa 04:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since Main is subjective. -- Prove It (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge arbitrary inclusion OCAT, TewfikTalk 10:05, 7 September 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 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:Proposed states and union territories in India[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was keep. No prejudice against future attempt to rename. After Midnight 0001 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proposed states and union territories in India. A speculative category.No competent authority has proposed to create any new state in India. Category be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am not sure what a 'competent authority' means in this case. The category collects several proposed subdivisions of major Indian states, some of which have been the focus of long running separatist movements. I rather think it is a useful category for someone investigating the similarities between such movements or the disadvantages of India's current policy of state demarcation on linguistic lines. Hornplease 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to something like Category:Separatist issues in India. I note there are already categories Category:Secession in India and Category:Nationalism in India, all currently unrelated, except in the main Category:Politics of India. They should all be placed in the same main sub-category, perhaps the Nationalism one. Johnbod 15:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs renaming or merging How about merging with "Secession in India"? Alternatively rename to "suggested states ... " No doubt only the Indian government or that of a state would be able to propose, and probably will not. Peterkingiron 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The competent authority to create a new state is government of India through a vote in parliament of India . Neither has "proposed" to create any new state .Also the demand to create a new state within union of India by bifurcating the existing states is not a secessionist demand as such.Shyamsunder 14:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think the category being discussed should be renamed as I have proposed, and placed in the "Nationalism" category. The Secession category should perhaps be merged with it, as Separatism includes Secession & I think some areas have movements in favour of each. Johnbod 03:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not rename The Government of India is definitely the competent authority to decide whether a new state is created, but anyone really can propose the creation/division of a state. Of course such proposals are only notable if they have received significant coverage in secondary sources and the relevant article talks about the issue with references. Assuming that to be the case, the current category should be retained as is. Aside: The movement to subdivide existing Indian states is not a separatist, secession or nationalistic movement and should not be categorized or linked with those. The current sub-categorization in Category:States and territories of India seems appropriate. Abecedare 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view any one can demand but can not propose new state.Anyway there exists an article Aspirant states of India.The article is like a list -extended one .Therefore I do not see the need for a separate category .Shyamsunder 13:18, 3 September 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 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:Airline companies of the United States[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airline companies of the United States to Category:Airline holding companies of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A more accurate description of the category from most of the entries. Vegaswikian 04:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Vegaswikian, and to more clearly exclude the airlines themselves. ×Meegs 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per both. Johnbod 15:43, 1 September 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 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:Latter Day Saint artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was delete per WP:OCAT. Kbdank71 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Day Saint artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Wryspy 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and manage category better The intention may have been to have a category for artists that create LDS-themed art, which would be a legitimate way of categorizing; however, some in this category have clearly been included merely because they are Latter Day Saint and they are an artist. Better management of the category may be preferable to deletion; however, if deletion occurs I also see no problem with putting people who create LDS-themed art in the Category:Latter Day Saint art and culture. –SESmith 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then, that's an argument for keeping this category, then, isn't it? –SESmith 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Vegaswikian 07:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, OK. I would argue that it is, because if those artists who create Latter Day Saint themed art can't go in "Latter Day Saint art and culture" because it's not a biographical category, then a biographical category like "Latter Day Saint artists" should exist to categorize them. I'd like to hear why this doesn't "really" make sense, as I thought it was fairly self-evident. –SESmith 07:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorizing people based on the themes of the art they create strikes me as a resoundingly bad idea. Artists can create art dealing with any number of themes or subjects and categorizing the people on that basis opens the same problems as the various classes of "performer by performance" categories that are in such disfavor. Otto4711 14:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it happens, and the categories are quite common. That was my point. If you'd like to make a comment in favor of deletion, do so—I personally am not interested in whether you think the principle of so categorizing people in general is a bad idea or not. Though of course perhaps others may be. –SESmith 22:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well pardenez mois I'm sure, I guess I mistook your saying I'd like to hear why this doesn't "really" make sense as meaning that you were interested in peoples' opinions on the subject. So, anyway, DELETE the category as overcategorization by irrelevant intersection of religion and occupation and oppose the suggested repurposing to hold artists whose art is of an LDS theme for the reasons I stated above. Otto4711 12:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I wasn't talking to you; my comment was clearly directed at Vegaswikian, since I specifically quoted from his response. Was "Pardenez mois" an attempt at French? Try "pardonnez-moi". (Sarcasm always works best when you're not over your head in your choice of word usage.) –SESmith 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, appaently the sarcasm worked just fine, if you were able to grasp it. I am, by the way, charmed by your quaint notion that you have some sort of expectation that your comments made in a public discussion won't be commented on by someone other than the person to whom they're directed. Alas, I fear that any illusions along those lines you may harbor will soon be dashed the longer you participate here. Otto4711 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your mind-reading super-power is not working today. I had no such "quaint" "expectation". I was explaining why I said I wasn't interested in your opinion on the specific matter. If I had such an understanding or expectation, I probably wouldn't have explained that to you. Think, man, think. ... :) (I'm joking of course and was teasing you before. Sorry if I did offend you.) –SESmith 00:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose and restrict to Artists of Latter Day Saint art which seems to me a genre, if not (imho) a very distinguished one. The temptation, occasionally in evidence recently, to stretch the "performer by performance" class to cover genres (or more accurately some genres) should be firmly resisted. Johnbod 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ocat by religion and profession, not all members of a religion create religious art for that religion. Carlossuarez46 06:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, but add headnote making clear that,especially in the case of living artists, only those artists for whose subject-matter is recognizably LDS should be included. Additions must meet the other strict requirements of WP:BLP#Categories:
  • The article text must corroborate and justify the subject's inclusion in the category.
  • The subject must publicly self-identify as LDS.
  • These facts must be accompanied by inline citations from reliable published sources. --Rrburke(talk) 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restrict category to those who specifically create LDS-themed art. Ubi Terrarum 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply put, if we need to manage the category, as the keep votes specify, then the name of the category is ambiguous. If we don't have a good name, then it needs to be deleted. There is no way to guarantee that the contents of a category are managed. Additions do no show up in a watch list. Vegaswikian 06:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overly narrow intersection. >Radiant< 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as an overly narrow and irrelevant intersection. There may be case for a category along the lines of "artists who create LDS-themed art", but we would need to see some evidence that there was actually such a thing as a distinct movement of LDS art ... and in any case, this category is not about the art, it's about the artist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 6 September 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 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:Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism) to Category:Pearl of Great Price (Latter Day Saints)
Nominator's rationale: Main article in category has long ago been renamed Pearl of Great Price (Latter Day Saints). The article was renamed because churches other than the Mormon Church use this book. These other churches are part of the Latter Day Saint movement. SESmith 02:47, 31 August 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 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:Mormon temples[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mormon temples to Category:Latter Day Saint temples
Nominator's rationale: The term "Mormon" is generally restrictive to the LDS Church; this category is not applied in this restrictive manner. A subcategory is Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which essentially means the same thing as "Mormon temples". "Latter Day Saint temples" would better describe this category because it includes the subcategory Category:Community of Christ temples and the temples of other Latter Day Saint denominations. The Community of Christ does not self-identify as a "Mormon" church. SESmith 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In this renamed category. FLDS is a Latter Day Saint church so their temple would be a "Latter Day Saint" temple just like temples of the LDS Chruch or Community of Christ. The idea is to move away from using "Mormon", which is typically used only to refer to the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalists. I think the articles and subcats in the category now are fine, it just needs to be renamed. –SESmith 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Use of "Mormon" can be confusing. Ubi Terrarum 00:36, 5 September 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 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:Latter-day Saint writers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename and prune Category:Latter-day Saint writers to Category:Latter Day Saint writers and delete Category:Latter-day Saint media personalities -Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Latter-day Saint writers to Category:Latter Day Saint writers
Propose renaming Category:Latter-day Saint media personalities to Category:Latter Day Saint media personalities
Nominator's rationale: These change in spelling will bring these categories into conformity with the other subcategories of Category:Latter Day Saints. The meaning of "Latter-day Saint" is restricted to members of the LDS Church whereas "Latter Day Saint" encompasses all followers of the Latter Day Saint movement. Having a "Latter-day Saint writers" subcategory of "Latter Day Saint writers" would be confusing and unnecessary. The Latter-day Saint media personalities" category looks like a candidate for deletion to me due to a non-significant intersection between religion and status, so I'm open to hearing thoughts on that as well. SESmith 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the first seems dangerously like overcategorization unless it's explicitly limited to those who write about the LDS. The second one is just bad. It's only parent is an LDS category, yet it's obviously intended as an intersection of some sort. But I'm not sure there's a particular "LDS style" of being a personality. It is highly inappropriate to categories LDS members any differently from anyone else on Wikipedia, and it looks like both of these categories are doing so. I'm inclined to recommend deletion, but the first may be salvageable. Xtifr tälk 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (nominator) : I pretty much agree with your comments. The second seemed quite odd, but I wasn't bold enough to propose deletion. The first I think is clearly salvagable as there are many writers who write exclusively on LDS topics. –SESmith 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as an irrelevant intersection of religion and occupation. Otto4711 12:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete second, weak keep, rename and prune the first, per nom's response to my comment above. The intro to the writers category should also be re-written to make its proper purpose more clear if the category is indeed kept. Xtifr tälk 03:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Otto, intersection of religion and profession: do Latter Day Saint writers write differently than Methodists, Lutherans, Atheists? don't think so. And are media personalities defined by their religion, don't think so either. Carlossuarez46 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename writers category per SESmith and Xtifr--limit to those who write on LDS topics. Delete media personalities category per other comments above. Ubi Terrarum 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overly narrow subdivision. >Radiant< 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep for Category:Latter-day Saint writers however the category is named, but add headnote making clear that, especially in the case of living writers, only those whose subject-matter is recognizably LDS should be included, and that additions must meet the other strict requirements of WP:BLP#Categories:
  • The article text must corroborate and justify the subject's inclusion in the category.
  • The subject must publicly self-identify as LDS.
  • These facts must be accompanied by inline citations from reliable published sources. --Rrburke(talk) 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I disagree on your second bullet point there. If the category is for writers whose subject is LDS, then the actual religion (if any) of the writer should be irrelevant. In most cases, these writers will be LDS, but it still shouldn't be a requirement if we're repurposing the category as suggested. Xtifr tälk 11:10, 7 September 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

-Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inactive bots on Wikipedia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Inactive bots on Wikipedia to Category:Bots not currently active
Nominator's rationale: Both categories address the same issue. --User:Piotrus 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Having two is confusing. –SESmith 02:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge' to make it clear this is a Wikipedia maintenance category. 132.205.44.5 21:48, 31 August 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 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:United States thoroughbred racing Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories below. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:United States Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame inductees. Kbdank71 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States thoroughbred racing Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I was a little surprised to see the change to Category:United States thoroughbred racing Hall of Fame inductees without notice to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. "Thoroughbred" is a proper name that requires a capital as officially recorded by The Jockey Club [4], the breed Registry for Thoroughbred horses in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Would you please revert this to its proper title. Thanx. (cc-Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing) Handicapper 18:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Moved request from my talk page. I originally processed this as a speedy rename from WP:CFDS. I have no opinion on this request. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I have no interest in what this is called, and have no issue with any closure deemed approriate here, including speedy solutions. — xaosflux Talk 04:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame inductees to match the lead article National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame. Otto4711 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note, that this type of thing should not be here, it is an error that simply should be reversed. This is a case of proper spelling, not choice. Handicapper 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you're here, it's all to play for, as many have found to their cost. I'm not convinced by Otto's alternative (the article title is arguably non-standard in combining two entities). I don't think they are inducted into the museum, just the H of F. If the nominator could follow convention by giving the name he actually wants, I expect I will support. Johnbod 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the rename capitalization issue of Thoroughbred; and am weakly opposed regarding the makeover suggested by Otto. Even if the location is a "museum and hall of fame", I don't think that we need to include that full name in the category, just as we use Category:Baseball Hall of Fame to group all the inductees to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. The name of the hall of fame appears to be Official National Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame, per [5]. Neier 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the actual name of the hall is something else then consider my rename above to be in favor of renaming to its actual name. I assumed that the above was the actual name based on the article. Otto4711 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the same facility probably houses both the museum and the hall of fame. [6] and [7] both refer to the National Museum of Racing’s Hall of Fame. So, while the museum displays all sorts of stuff (just like baseball's museum in Cooperstown), the HoF subsection is decidedly more selective. I don't think Official needs to be a part of this category, and, we're just one replaced word (National -> United States) from the original proposal, which is probably a step in the right direction (in case there are any other national museums in other countries). Neier 09:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the R in Racing be capitalized? It looks really odd being the only major word in the name in lower case. Otto4711 17:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe- but he doesn't mention it. I wish he'd do the nomination properly & say what he wants! Johnbod 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok: "Official National Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame" is what their website calls it (ref above). I've added the capital R. I think the "U..S..." is better than "Official National ...". Johnbod 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, this statement is absurd: "Once you're here, it's all to play for, as many have found to their cost." Grow up and contribute positively rather than take time from people who make real and significant contributions here. Not one person commenting on this knows anything about Thoroughbred horse racing and as I have now said twice, this change made by someone was because they "thought" in their brilliance that Thoroughbred should have no capital "T" and changed it to a their incorrect spelling. So, we have a discussion that includes people who 1) think they are cute, 2) can't spell, and 3) know zip about the subject. The name is not the "United States Thoroughbred Racing Hall of Fame", which, btw, would require an apostrophe, it is the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame, a private corporation. What a waste. Handicapper 13:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Say what you actually want & people can comment on it. I've given up trying to read your mind. Johnbod 13:55, 7 September 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_31&oldid=1138387727"