Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Category:Patristics[edit]

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; no merge. Feel free to renominate for a name change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Patristics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:Patristics to Category:Church Fathers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As the article will tell you, Patristics is just a fancy word for the "study of the Church Fathers" It is totally redundant and hence either Category:Patristics or Category:Church Fathers needs to be merged into the other. Church Fathers is a much more common term for people to know its meaning. Carlaude (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only new question is if it better to
  • A: have no articles in the parent Category (as I describe above, fine with me)
  • B: have a small number (6 or 8) of articles about things about Church Fathers in the parent Category (they would hardly every be what a user is looking for and it would hard to keep sorting out these works from real Works of the Church Fathers)
  • C: have a larger (70) articles about the individual Church Fathers in the parent Category (easier for users and maintainers)--Carlaude (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I still don't understand; perhaps it is a difference of terminology or language? If there are articles inappropriately placed in the Patristics category, or which are missing, it may need cleanup, but that does not necessarily mean the name is improper. With all due respect, what you propose looks to my eyes like renaming Category:Botany to Category:Plants and then creating Category:Individual plants.-choster (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 3 impotant differences.
1. People are all taught the word Botany in grade school and normally we are not even taught the word Patristics in college.
2. Plants do not write works that are hard to separte (by name) from the works about plants -- such as both having latin names, similar subjects, etc.
3. Because of the great number of plants in the world, Wikipedia requiers a separate Individual plants-type category, but not so with Church Fathers. There are only 70 Church Fathers on Wikipedia and they would be okay with or without an Individual Church Fathers-type category -- as they would not over run the parent category if left there. --Carlaude (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the lay person with no background in the study, I doubt "Church Fathers" is any more familiar than "Patristics" (a term incidentally which I was taught in high school, though I do not claim my education to be typical in that regard). Your second point seems to argue against your own position; it ought to be possible to browse the biographical articles about the Church Fathers in one place without the clutter of non-biographical articles. To your third point, mixing seventy articles about people with forty articles about other topics most certainly reduces usability and findability for the end user. I would argue so with even a dozen.-choster (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with those points. In particular, mixing bios & non-bios in a category will normally, as here, cause trouble with the parents. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would there be any mixing?
the only mixing at all would be a when there is a mistake! and that would mostly be when there is a new article created and placed in whatever is the parent category. Mistakes will also be eliminated faster if the correct subject of the parent category is not confused with the other subject of the of the sub cats (point #2). Why would there be any other mixing? --Carlaude (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choster. Another rename might make sense. Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Consider Rename The proposed target is inaccurate. The current name is rather inscrutable, and an appropriate rename is worth considering. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename if possible. Choster has already analyzed the issues with respect to keeping separate categories very lucidly and persuasively, so I don't think there's anything to add on that score. But "Patristics" is rather obscure to non-specialists. Can somebody suggest an alternative name? Cgingold (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Patristics is a branch of theology concerned with the study of the writings of the Church Fathers. The church Fathers were people - authors of early Christian writings. These are utterly different subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Solidarity[edit]

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 category:Solidarity to Category:Solidarity (Polish union movement) and Category:Solidarity activists to Category:Solidarity (Polish union movement) activists. A requested move for the Solidarity article is likely in order too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solidarity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Solidarity activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rationale: The word "Solidarity" is too ambiguous to serve alone as an article or Category name -- additional words are required to indicate which particular meaning/usage is intended. For example, we have Solidarity (social sciences) and Solidarity (Polish trade union). I raised this issue recently at Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board#Solidarity/Solidarność in hopes of settling on a new name to propose here. That attempt fell a little short, so this proposal is solely my own work. The obvious question is why I'm not simply using the name of the main article. Fundamentally, that is because the category covers not just the Solidarity trade union per se -- it encompasses the whole Solidarity movement, which is much broader in scope (as can be seen by a glance at the articles). For the sake of brevity in category names, I considered "Solidarity (Polish movement)", but I think that's taking things too far -- whereas, "Solidarity (Polish trade union movement)" would be taking things too far in the other direction. So I feel Solidarity (Polish union movement) is a good compromise. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, I understand how strongly you feel about using the name "Solidarity", but please bear in mind that the Polish trade union Solidarity doesn't actually own the rights to that word. Of course it's the common English name, but the guideline section you've cited says, "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", which this clearly does. I gave you the courtesy of notifying you of this CFD because I feel it's important to hear what Category creators have to say on the subject. So it sure would have been nice if you had disclosed that, after being notified, you promptly and without discussion changed the name of the main article from "Solidarity (Polish trade union)" to "Solidarity". That change in name completely altered the tenor of this CFD discussion. (See below for additional details on this issue.) Cgingold (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title of the parent article is Solidarity, and there appears to be no reason to disambiguate it for other possible meanings. While it would be wonderful to include more definition details within the title in general, categories are rarely accessed directly, outside of the context of an article or while passing through the category structure. Given the context available from an article or other category, adding further descriptive details seems unnecessary. In this case, this will make it unlikely for any but the most knowledgeable editors to add the correct title to an article while adding little to benefit raders of the articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – given the host of articles Special:PrefixIndex/solidarity beginning with 'Solidarity' it is surprising that the Polish one is not disambiguated. Occuli (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment: After learning that the name of the main article had been changed, I looked through the recent edit history of the article and discovered that the name has been changed 5 times in the last 4-1/2 months, with the following edit summaries:
  • 13:11, July 26, 2008 Dbachmann (moved Solidarity to Solidarity (trade union): there is no way this is the primary meaning)
  • 13:10, August 2, 2008 Neelix (moved Solidarity (trade union) to Solidarity over redirect: This has been identified as the primary meaning.)
  • 16:24, August 18, 2008 Everyme (moved Solidarity to Solidarity (trade union) over redirect: by far most readers should be looking for a discussion about the sociological term)
  • 00:15, September 23, 2008 Oom Kosie (moved Solidarity (trade union) to Solidarity (Polish trade union): There is a large trade union in South Africa with the same name. To just call the Polish one "Solidarity (trade union)" is therefore misleading. I am going to rename the South )
  • 11:53, December 9, 2008 Piotrus (moved Solidarity (Polish trade union) to Solidarity: this is the original name, please use WP:RM for renaming (plus, currently Solidarity is a redirect here anyway... )
Given the lack of concensus and resulting instability in the article's name -- and more importantly, given the fact, as I've already pointed out, that this category is inherently broader in scope than the article -- there is no sound reason for the category's name to be required to match the name of the main article.
Equally important, Category names are consistently held to a somewhat higher standard than what is required for articles when it comes to the issue of ambiguity. (Though in this particular case, it's not even appropriate for the article to use the word "Solidarity" by itself.) Not only are there multiple trade unions that use that name, but the word itself has a number of different, unrelated usages. If the majority of our readers were Polish, I suppose a case could be made for using the word by itself -- especially if it was 1980 or 1981, rather than 2008. But of course only a tiny minority of our readers are Polish -- so for the vast majority of readers, the Solidarity trade union is not likely to be the first thing that comes to mind when they see that word. (And let's not forget that the real name is Solidarność -- not "Solidarity".) This is especially problematic when it comes to the sub-cat, Category:Solidarity activists, since that is a very widely used term that most commonly refers to activists who have nothing whatsoever to do with Polish trade union activists of the 1980s.
In light of the problems I've outlined, I just don't see how we can possibly keep these categories at their current names. If anybody can improve on the names I've suggested, please feel free to do so. Cgingold (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The categories should certainly have a clarifying note, although a glance at the list makes the subject pretty clear. Really the article title should be sorted out first. Personally I can live with this having the plain name, but I don't feel too strongly about it. The amazing plethora of left-wing bandwagon jumping namealikes (many just redirects in fact) doesn't bother me too much. Solidarity was also a political party, as the Solidarity Citizens' Committee - not in the category until just now - something our main article doesn't really make clear. I must say I don't entirely see the point of the very short Solidarity, whiuch should probably be merged with the much fuller History of Solidarity. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside the head category for the moment, what about the sub-category? It seems to me that readers are vastly more likely to construe Category:Solidarity activists as referring to the most common English-language usage of the term, which has to do with activists who are standing/working in solidarity with various struggles, movements, countries, etc. Cgingold (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the case of this being ambiguous is clear. Whether or not something else might merit a category, it not material since it does not make this name unambiguous. Also the full name is 'Independent Self-governing Trade Union "Solidarity"' so keeping this as the common name for the category name would require you to establish that this was the most common use "Solidarity". Given that this is a common word in the English language, that would be difficult to do. Then you would need to address the points raised by Cgingold concerning Category:Solidarity activists. All in all, the case for not renaming has many issues and in my opinion the strength of the discussion points clearly state a clear case for needing the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of both. Cgingold has set out the reasons well w.r.t. ambiguity. I can't see how anyone can argue that it's not ambiguous—there's no evidence that this is the most common use of the word "Solidarity" in English. Matching the article is a non-issue because of the multiple changes; the current article name is clearly not stable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Kbdank71 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hatashe[edit]

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) 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hatashe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This appears to be being used as a guide for an editor, User:Hatashe, around articles he has edited, or otherwise retains an interest in - as he puts it 'This Page only for Hatashe Easy query.' Doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia by having these articles tagged with this category. Benea (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Delete - Categories like this have been routinely deleted countless times. If they're not already covered under one of the Speedy Deletion criteria, they should be. Cgingold (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - by this diff the author may be attempting to request deletion? Benea (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England[edit]

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) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete As discussed on the WikiProject talk page, this category is variously misleading, impossible to properly qualify and essentially an arbitrary collection of information. "Scottish players who have played in X" is bad enough in general, but the extreme proximity to England causes lots of additional problems, including players with caps for the Scotland national football team who self-identify as English. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Over-categorisation. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, assuming they are all in Category:Scottish footballers by some other means. It also clears up the difficulty of whether a Scot in England can be sensibly termed an expatriate ... is Gordon Brown ever referred to as 'an expatriate'? Occuli (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. disagree that there is any problem with this, an equivalent to a 'Fooian expat footballer in Booia' cat page. fills in schema nicely and should not be singled out for deletion Mayumashu (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A British person in the UK is not an expatriate, so the equivalence fails. Occuli (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Equivalency' doesn t fail when discussing FIFA and really football in general. The home nations are de facto countries then. Again, it s an equivalent, not the real thing. Use of the term 'expat' would be wrong - that is why the naming shouldn t and doesn t include it. Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're not really "de facto countries". There are guidelines which separate them from a Home Nations point of view, but that's it - guidelines. This category implies a brighter line than is really the case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has does this category imply anything more than what it is named - Scots who ve played in England? 'A brighter line than is implied', to me, would be to use 'expatriate' in the naming. But with the home nation FAs, with football there is distinct 'national' separation. Rarely is Denis Law or Kenny Dalglish (or David Beckham for that matter) described as a 'British footballer'. And an Andy Goram can be both an English footballer and a Scottish one who s played in England (as well as an English one who s played in Scotland) - But mightn t our disagreement go further than this? Are you against having the 'Fooian expatriate footballers in Booia' set? Mayumashu (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berwick Rangers F.C. are literally based south of the border but play in the Scottish Football League. Are their players to be included in this category? What about Gretna F.C. players prior to 2002, when Gretna played in the English leagues despite being based physically in Scotland? Expat categories are much easier when there's a bright line between "home" and "expatriate". The situation with Scotland and England is far murkier, and this makes the category a mess. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These categories should all be deleted, not just Scottish players in England or vice versa, as it is overcategorisation. Categories such as Premier League players, The Football League players, etc, show whether a player played in a certain country and even a certain league system within that country. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Evangelical cathedrals of the United States[edit]

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Evangelical cathedrals of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete First, "cathedral" does not refer to any large or important church, but one that serves as the seat of a bishop; someone may dub a church a "cathedral" as a marketing gesture but that does not make it one, any more than Coronado Island is an island. Three of the five listings belonging to non-episcopal denominations, are thus miscategorized; two at least are OCAT by name. Second, "evangelicalism" is a theological movement, not a style of worship (which could be defining architecturally) or a denominational group (which could be defining organizationally). I would not consider it a natural way to group places of worship. I've already added the articles to their respective denominational and geographic categories, so this can be a clean delete.choster (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. --Carlaude (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (most) to Category:Megachurches where appropriate, which it seems to be for most. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge where appropriate per Choster's theological movement point, noting that dictionary.com has several prominent dictionaries that have "one of several prominent churches" as a legitimate definition of "cathedral" and therefore churches shouldn't be automatically excluded simply because they don't belong to an episcopal denomination. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_9&oldid=1138390069"