Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 7 October 9 >

October 8[edit]

Category:UK Christian Student Societies[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. Kbdank71 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK Christian Student Societies to Category:British Christian student societies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fix caps on the non-proper noun "Student Societies" and change "UK" adjective to "British" to mirror immediate parent, Category:British student societies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 8 October 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:Laurel & Hardy[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. Kbdank71 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Laurel & Hardy to Category:Laurel and Hardy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Remove ampersand and match article Laurel and Hardy. Tim! (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. Borderline as speedy "typographical error"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. That said, I think the other should be kept as a soft-redirect. - jc37 02:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep redirect as per Jc37. Lugnuts (talk) 07:10, 9 October 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:Battletoads characters[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. Kbdank71 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Battletoads characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Populated by only one list of characters. Pagrashtak 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated. I see there used to be two lists but they have been merged. No need to upmerge into its other head category Category:Rareware as the games are in there already and link to this list. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:54, 11 October 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:National Register of Historic Places disambiguation[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. Kbdank71 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Register of Historic Places disambiguation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category was created to use with a template that has since been deleted. Only has one entry. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This looks like it's close to a C3. - jc37 05:46, 10 October 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:Baldur's Gate characters[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. Kbdank71 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Baldur's Gate characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Populated by only one list of characters. Pagrashtak 18:22, 8 October 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:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places[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 to Category:Railway-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places; as discussed, we can't just add "National" to the current name (esp if registered is fixed to register). "National Register of Historic Places" is a singular entity. The Register is the noun, so just adding National would leave you with essentially "Railway-related National Register", which is horrible grammar. Kbdank71 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places to Category:Listings related to railroads on the National Register of Historic Places
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct incorrect syntax. Appraiser (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose is to eliminate the phrase "Registered Historic Place" which was invented on Wikipedia. The National Park service created and maintains a list called the "National Register of Historic Places". We have discussed many alternatives including "listings", "entries", "items", "sites", etc. The consensus is to use "listings", which in this case includes bridges, tunnels, engines, depots, shops, etc. related to railroads in the U.S. I'm open to specific suggested alternatives within the framework I have described.--Appraiser (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had read through the talk page and just now scanned the archive. The archive is clearly about avoiding the use of Registered Historic Places and to use National Registered Historic Places. So I would think there would be no objection here to adding National to the category names. I suspect that after this discussion there would be near unanimous support for that change. The concerns now are probably about the need to include the word listing in the category names. I don't see the need for this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean National Register of Historic Places, right? The primary concern was to eliminate "Registered Historic Place".--Appraiser (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an official usage of the phrase from 1982. I would be surprised if the term 'registered historic place' is not in general use (in lower-case), in the real world outside wikipedia. Occuli (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the link points to a state of Illinois list. The National Register of Historic Places is a U.S. government function administered by the National Park Service.[1] They don't use the term "Registered Historic Place".--Appraiser (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to this name suggested by Otto4711. Royalbroil 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    I think we could eliminate a main concern if National Register of Historic Places was the initial noun in the name.
    We should also try to minimise the in/on debate as well, if possible.
    So far, that seems to give us: National Register of Historic Places railroad-related x
    Else we have: Railroad-related x in/on the National Register of Historic Places
    As for x, "listings" just seems confusing to me. The previous discussions "entries" is better, but not by much. Id there soemthing else we could substitute for "x"? - jc37 03:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Listings" does indeed have consensus. It was either that or "properties", and that had two problems:
  • The National Park Service prefers to avoid it, as it implies federal ownership or heavy regulation, which is not the case.
  • Historic districts are also on the Register, and those are often as not collections of properties owned by different parties; therefore the singular "property" is grammatically incorrect.
"Listings" is also analogous to its use in the buying and selling of real estate, and we also found that a lot of the state historic-preservation offices tend to use it: Ohio, North Carolina, Montana, Missouri, the Colorado Historical Society, Arkansas for example. The NPS itself also refers to its weekly additions to the Register that way.
In short, there's a lot of weight and consensus behind this wording, which took us a month to settle on. I'm not in a mood to reopen it here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure that there is going to be a consensus here. The naming for categories is a little different then for articles since we are grouping likes and not naming things. While the current names have existed for a while without the need to indicate the type of item in these category names, this has now become an issue due the the renaming of some articles. So I guess the question is does that change mean that the category names have been a problem and that problem needs to be corrected? If the category names were not broken then why do we need to change? Other then changing 'Registered Historic Places' to 'National Register of Historic Places' do we really need to fix anything? Are the category names as they exist confusing for anyone? Would the proposed addition of listings be beneficial to the readers? Would it create more confusion then we have today? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying issue is not that the articles are being renamed, but rather that there was a serious problem with the names of all these articles and categories. That is, Wikipedia apparently invented the term "Registered Historic Place" and has been treating this invented term as a proper name throughout hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and categories. After months of discussion at the Wikiproject, new terminology was selected for article names and is being implemented. Renaming of the categories is one of the last steps in the process of expunging Wikipedia of a term that was essentially original research. I think the fact that this erroneous nomenclature existed for such a long time is a problem, because there has been a long period of time for the Wikipedia neologism to seep out into the world. --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted earlier you cannot simply replace "Registered Historic Places" with "National Register of Historic Places". Even without knowledge or understanding of how the NRHP works, it's grammatically clear that the former is a plural whereas the latter is a singular noun. I continue to wish the Park Service would officially adopt the former terminology, but it has its own reasons besides the universal imperative of governments everywhere to not only manhandle the language but indirectly force others to do so. And I can't use Wikipedia to make them do the sensible thing. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 14 October 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:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places[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 both to Category:Infrastructure-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places per here, above, and other related categories (which use "on"). Kbdank71 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Infrastructure-related Registered Historic Places to Category:Listings related to infrastructure on the National Register of Historic Places
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct incorrect syntax. Appraiser (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This and the above discussion need to be closed in a similar way. I'll argue that this discussion may need to continue somewhere specifically directed to categories. How will this change work when it gets migrated down to the state and other political divisions and groupings? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that we'll be using the same nomenclature as the list articles: "National Register of Historic Places listings in JURISDICTION". The topicsl and property-type categories are really the hard part. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 14 October 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:Reformed Church[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 to Category:Reformed denominations, to be followed with a recategorization of any calvinism-related articles (by someone who knows more about the subject than I do). Kbdank71 14:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Comment Support generally - Category:Reformed denominations is itself not the clearest term & should probably be renamed, maybe to Category:Calvinist denominations. Whilst broadly Calvinist churches seem to be the only ones to use "Reformed" in their titles, the term is often used elsewhere with a wide range of meanings - see the current version of English Reformation which is desperate to avoid any statement referring to the 16th century Church of England as "Protestant", so uses "reformed" instead! That certainly doesn't mean Calvinist. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not personally object to Category:Calvinist denominations but I have never known such groups use that term, at least not formally. Their very anit-saint outlook seems to move them avoid naming themselves or denominations or churches after any human, like Calvin. Theology can be "Calvinist" or "Reformed" but churches, formally speaking, are "Reformed".
Maybe, Category:Calvinist and Reformed denominations would still work for them.--Carlaude (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that is clearer, as Calvinist is the descriptive term mostly used by non-members. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not support changing the name unless a clear link to new the category is provided for users searching for the "Reformed" wording. Especially the European context, the term "Reformed" is used more often than "Calvinist", when referring to the denominations, or the spiritual and cultural movement that birthed them. "Calvinist" seems more theological than informational. In France, in particular, "Calvinist" sometimes brings up negative sociological images, in a general sense, to the public at large. I happen to live in Europe and do a good deal of research on line so this change bothered me (and I do have a Reformed beckground -- I am not anti-calvinist!). Make sure any change is something clear and connected to the "Reformed" wordings. Thanks for letting me put in my two centimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robaire999 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this point I'd like to see some sources as to what the churches call themselves, and what verifiable reliable sources call them. - jc37 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at any list of the names of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Can you find any church that uses the term "Calvinist" in its name? I couldn't. Now look at how many use "Reformed" in their name. Likewise for the Wikipedia List of Reformed churches. --Carlaude (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for being unclear. I meant besides Wikipedia. - jc37 01:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this World Alliance of Reformed Churches list of many membership using "Reformed" in their name and not using "Calvinist"? --Carlaude (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Calvinist refers to a theological position (supporting the doctrine of election), as opposed to Arminianism. I am not clear whether "Reformed" churches necessarily all hold that theological position. On the other hand, "Reformed" tends to refer to churhces that emerged from the Reformation, either as a synonym for Protestant, or as a grouping within Protestant Churches, distinct from the Lutherans (and Anglicans). I thus tend to agree that this a vague category, which could usefully be retired, but this needs to be done by distributing the contents to more appropriate categories, rather than either renaming or deleting. It needs to be kept until some one knowledgeable can undertake this recategorisation. Perhaps A rename to "reformed denominations", would do as an interim measure. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If folks want to rename Category:Reformed denominations to another name to that effect, that is fine with me, but if we cannot agree the best option we still need to delete Category:Reformed Church. In fact carrying out the deletion of Category:Reformed Church and reposting the topic as a rename afterward may help focus the discussion.--Carlaude (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the main article is Reformed churches (plural) and the existing category should not be kept with its current name. Merge to Category:Reformed denominations as a first step, then would the nominator please check afterwards whether any articles need to be re-categorised in Calvinism instead. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:22, 14 October 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:Baptist denominations and churches in North America[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 to Category:Baptist denominations in North America. Kbdank71 14:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose renaming Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America to Category:Baptist denominations of North America
(Proposed category name is changed from "in" to "of" North America -- much more common format.--Carlaude (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Rename - There is a whole struture of categories of on denominations-- and a whole separate struture of categories of on church (building)s. "Denominations and churches" is unclear and confusing as people will sometimes use the term "church" to mean a "denomination". There are already:
Category:Baptist churches in the United States
Category:Baptist churches in Canada
Category:Baptist denominations
Category:Christian denominations in North America
--Carlaude (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is certainly a problem here, but I don't think an independent church is a denomination - is the intention to remove these from the category? A note on the category defining its scope and pointing to alternatives for buildings etc would be the first step. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I only found one or two churches the category to begin with, but my intention is make this category clear-- clearly about denominations and not independent churches or church buldings also, so that its loction in other categories is clear. I want to remove it from the the Category:Baptist churches, etc.-- and eliminate and perceved need to keep a page in both "Category:Baptist denominations" and "Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America" when they can just be put in "Category:Baptist denominations in North America"
I also think it would be unclear what is meant by an "independent" Baptist church (all Baptist church independent in goverment, and some with the word "independent" in the name may still work with a denomination)-- but better to have "independent" Baptist church in own category or no category than mix them in with Baptist denominations.--Carlaude (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I have created a number "of" sub-categories to follow the format of the parent Category:Christian denominations in North America, unaware of any other such conventions. --Carlaude (talk) 15:21, 10 October 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:English centre-forwards[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: upmerge. Kbdank71 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English centre-forwards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an inappropriate intersection of categories. Players can already be categorised as English footballers and as strikers, but there is no need to have a category to identify them as both. – PeeJay 07:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Football (soccer) strikers (as these will be already in other 'English' categories). Occuli (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I won't claim to be an expert (of this sport anyway : ) - But the article, and a comment on the article's talk page suggest that there is a difference between the two terms. So, for now, Opposing, though waiting on further discussion. - jc37 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is a slight difference in the actual roles played by strikers and centre-forwards, but the two terms are also fairly interchangeable. This category doesn't seem to distinguish between players who are normally considered centre-forwards and those considered strikers, so the actual naming of the category is immaterial next to the fact that it is an inappropriate intersection. – PeeJay 09:52, 13 October 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:Georgia Republicans[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: speedy rename per speedy criterion #6. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Georgia Republicans to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Republicans
Nominator's rationale: Merge, for consistency of name with other subcats of Category:Georgia (U.S. state). —Paul A (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename - This is specifically designated as one of the criteria for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename - since one might be looking at the opposite of a Georgia monarchist... 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:34, 9 October 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:Serie A 2007-08[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. Kbdank71 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Serie A 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Serie A 2006-07 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as over categorization as a single entry category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as the only article is already in both parents. (Category:Serie A 2006-07 has 2 articles and should perhaps be upmerged to its parents.) Occuli (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the second one. I looked at the articles and I don't believe that we need to upmerge since the articles appear to have different but correct parent categories already. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 8 October 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:Swedish-speaking Finns[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Swedish-speaking Finns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Incomplete delete nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Finland-Swedes per discussion on the category talk page. __meco (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the main article is at Swedish-speaking Finns, we have List of Swedish-speaking Finns and Swedish-Finn Historical Society. It strikes me as a poor choice either to delete or rename this in isolation. Suggest keep and leave messages for the Finnish and Swedish Wikiprojects to come to consensus on the proper course of action. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to List of Swedish-speaking Finns, which does quite a better job of sorting and explaining the entries. - jc37 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current name is the result of a previous CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Finland was ruled by Sweden until its conquest by Russia in (I think) the 1800s. It is conceivable that this remains a substantive ethnic group. If so, it should be kept. We have numerous categories for Booians of Fooian descent. This is the same kind of thing in a different style. Swedish is taught as a second language in Finland, so that persons merely with the ability to speak Swedish should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 13 October 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:Anglican churches[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 to Category:Anglican Communion church bodies. Kbdank71 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Anglican churches to Category:Anglican Communion Churches
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the category content (Churches and Provinces that are part of the Anglican Communion) and to match naming conventions of used in Category:Christian denominations, etc. "Anglican churches" implys bodies all of Anglicanism but it does not nor is it ment to contain Continuing Anglicanism denominations. In all other categories "churches" is about church buildings and/or local churches, where unions of these lower case churches are called "denominations" (prefered, e.g. Category:Methodist denominations) or if need be "Churches" (e.g. Category:African Initiated Churches). --Carlaude (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Anglican church bodies which I think is clearer, and will at least make people pause a moment before adding yet another parish church to the category. With "Communion" if necessary; I don't think I see the need myself. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anglican church bodies would be less clear. To you, would Category:Anglican church bodies be for just church bodies of the Anglican Communion and not church bodies of the Continuing Anglican movement?
If so-- then what would keep people from adding the Continuing Anglican movement bodies to the category?
If not-- then it duplicates the current parent category Category:Anglican denominations and is still not as clear as it is.--Carlaude (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just AC ones. This can all be done by notes in bold I think. So long as the category is just "churches", we will continue to have 50% inappropriate articles I fear. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is long way around for very little (if any) gain. People often do not even look at the category page itself. Renaming it to Category:Anglican Communion church bodies would solve your concern, as would renaming to Category:Anglican Communion bodies --Carlaude (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is ok, though I think Continuing Anglican articles are likely to be more carefully placed. I think "church bodies" is needed, or charities, schools etc will be added. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So to sum up, we agree Rename Category:Anglican churches to Category:Anglican Communion church bodies.--Carlaude (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Renaming to Category:Churches of the Anglican Communion. I know it is in danger of breaking up, but it still exists for the moment. "Continuing Anglicanism" should not appear, but a cross-reference to a more appropriate category might encourage the over-enthusiastic to desist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Churches of the Anglican Communion is the worst idea yet. It reverses the subjects of all related categories, and putting the word "Churches" first hides the purpose in capitalizing it to mean the larger Church bodies and not just capitalized for being at the start of the category name.
Also-- this discussion is not about Continuing Anglicanism. See below.--Carlaude (talk) 06:52, 14 October 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:Continuing Anglicanism[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, cleanup may be needed. Kbdank71 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Continuing Anglicanism to Category:Continuing Anglican denominations
Nominator's rationale: Rename for much greater clarity. Both Category:Anglican realignment and Category:Continuing Anglicanism contain pages on Continuing Anglican denominations and the Continuing Anglican Movement itself but only the second category is within Category:Anglican denominations and it is inticated there as the loction of the Continuing Anglican denominations. --Carlaude (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then you would have us delete Category:Anglican realignment (basiclly another name for the same movement and containing the same sorts of articles) and put its articles in Category:Anglican realignment? This is good so long as the category deletion is part of the plan.--Carlaude (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They seem very different - Anglican realignment is within the Anglican Communion, and Continuing Anglicanism outside it, although they share many views. It seems a mistake that CA is a sub-cat of AR. So no on this one. Some articles, like King's Family of Churches "Orientation:Charismatic Anglican and Evangelical Catholic" don't seem to belong here at all. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had just found my error. Your rename sounds good.--Carlaude (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at more articles in AR, some are in & some are out of the AC, but I think we have to treat the categories seperately. Whether things like Episcopal Diocese of Dallas - the standard Episcopalian diocese, should be in AR I rather doubt - do they all have the same views? Anyway, glad we agree. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 8 October 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:Heavy rain (meteorology)[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: Wrong Xfd forum (these are articles, not categories). Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Heavy rain (meteorology) to [[:Category:Rain#Classifying the amount of rain]]
Nominator's rationale: Three main points:
  1. can never (appropriately) be a reasonable-length article without simply duplicating information elsewhere.
  2. is better shown in context of the definitions of other classes (heavier and lighter) than in isolation.
  3. happens to differ from the definition in the main article. Bongomatic (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This confused the hell out of me... Until I figured out that you've come to the wrong place with this. You're talking about actual articles, not categories -- which are two entirely different kinds of animals. So I'm going to close out this discussion, since the issue you're dealing with is simply outside the purview of a CFD discussion. You've already got both of the articles tagged for merging, so you can either resolve things through that process, or if you wish, you can tag the Heavy rain (meteorology) article for deletion (either {{subst:prod}} or {{subst:afd}}). Cgingold (talk) 03:35, 8 October 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:Elseworlds titles[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Elseworlds titles to Category:Elseworlds
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category:Elseworlds has one entry other than the sub-category Category:Elseworlds titles. Given its narrow definition, the category is unlikely to gain additional members. It seems to me that it would simplify things if the two were combined. GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Oppose. I actually think that the "titles" cat is more important than the parent. (See also Category:DC Comics titles, and the twin "branches" above it.) And the parent could probably be deleted if found to be unnecessary. - jc37 01:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose each one is part of the larger structure and have their own distinct parent categories. (Emperor (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm all for structure and consistency, but with so few entries, I feel like it adds a barrier to navigation rather than aiding it. At least with Category:Vertigo (DC Comics), there are two sub-cats and two entries. If we do decide to merge the two, we can still make the resultant categories a sub-category of all the original parents. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since the Elseworld's category can be planted in Category:DC Comics titles without too much fuss. Surprised to see Elseworlds in the imprint category. Can't see a source in the article for describing it as an imprint, and I'd always seen it as a line rather than an imprint. Hiding T 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seriously wondering if we're just categorising to categorise here. I know that this was a bit of a "todo" previously, but the "titles" cats are pervasive. The various "companies" cats, not so much. We shouldn't be creating a "company" parent if that cat is only going to hold the company's article, and a sub-category of the titles. Such categories (the company ones) could and should be upmerged, as we do all other such small categories. (And I may do just that as a group nom in the future, not sure yet.) And such cats can always be recreated should usefulness arise.
    But to upmerge the titles to the company ones simply to justify their existence doesn't seem to be a good idea.
    And as an aside, I think the solution here might just be to subcat Category:Comics publications under Category:Comics industry.
    Note: I enboldened my comment above to indicate that that perspective hasn't changed. - jc37 05:46, 10 October 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:Christian templates[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. Kbdank71 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merge of Category:Christian templates into Category:Christianity templates
Category:Christian templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Christian templates duplicates the subject of Category:Christianity templates, but is not based on a noun, as is preferred by Wikipedia policy. --Carlaude (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Not sure I'm correctly interpreting what I'm looking at, but from what I can tell, of the categories, "Christian" predates "Christianity". Then the creator of the latter tried to soft redirect the former to the latter, and then reverted themself. (Note also that Christian is a noun too.) I think I'd like to see more discussion on this. - jc37 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Christian" can be a noun, but here it is used as an adjective. It is a category of "templates on all things Christian" --adjective --Carlaude (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominated; this will be the most consistent outcome. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:13, 11 October 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:Greatest Nationals[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Greatest Nationals to Category:Greatest nationals
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization (It is not a title of something by ityself, and in wikipedia tiltes (articles, sections, etc.) are non-capitalized). Timurite (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I checked almost all of the articles and none of them contain sourcing for the assertion that any of these shows bear any relation to 100 Greatest Britons. Absent such sourcing this is overcategorization by shared/similar name that basically amounts to "TV show ideas which were ripped off from other TV shows" which is a road down which I would hope we would not choose to travel. There is a list (also unsourced) and a template, so the articles are more than adequately connected if an actual connection between them is ever established. (oops forgot to sign) Otto4711 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's that list? I don't think there is one. The category seems valid to me - oddly The Greatest American is only in this category, & generally the article establishes a useful grouping imo. Otto may be right about the category note/description, but that is just an argument for changing that. However the name gave me no idea what to expect from the category (horse-racing maybe?) so Rename to Category:Greatest national persons television series or something more elegant. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Having looked at a few (Argentina, Sth Africa, Russia etc) the format would seem to be sufficiently similar to suggest licenses were involved. If one could be bothered to register at [2] it would probable say which markets have had licenses granted. I still think the category worth maintaining. The grouping here is more interesting than in most licensed tv shows. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's for articles, Otto. In any case it would be Subject-specific common knowledge. I have pointed to one way it can be checked. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR certainly applies to categories as well as articles. Regardless, that a particular television program has been licensed from another similar program is hardly common knowledge. Indeed, you've acknowledged that it is an assumption on your part. You're the one arguing in favor of the category. It's up to you to prove that these programs are actually related to one another. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is only the category note that claims that & that does not affect the utility of the category imo. The common knowledge is that very similar formats need to be licenced from the originator. The similarities were very apparent from the articles I saw. I'd point out the nom is to rename - deletion is so far only argued by you. See the para beginning "BBC Worldwide here :"BBC Worldwide has also sealed its first format deal in Malaysia, where the satellite channel Astro is to produce its own version of the Great Britons format to mark the country's 50th year of independence. Work on Great Malaysians will begin in June for broadcast later this year. The format has now been sold into 14 countries including Spain (TVE), Holland (KRO), the US (Discovery), Germany (ZDF) and France (France 2)...." From over a year ago. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting that the dozens of for instance home improvement shows with near-identical formats that have sprung up everywhere all trace back to one common licensed show? You have a cite for that rather extraordinary claim? It may very well be common knowledge that similar shows are sometimes licensed but that is far from the same thing as claiming that these particular shows were licensed from the British as opposed to simply being ripped off from one another. And sorry, but when the first word in your source is "blog" that raises enormous if not insurmountable reliability guidelines.
  • If you're now saying that these shows should be lumped together whether there's any relationship between them or not, then that's clearly overcategorization by shared name. The Greatest American Hero could go in here under this proposed standard. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And excuse me, but you've been here more than long enough to know that once something is brought to CFD all options are on the table, so spare me this eyelash-batting disingenuous "this was supposed to be about renaming!" nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down - have you overdone the pills? I gave you exactly what you asked for & you go into hyperdrive. Do you really believe the blog - of a firm with a reputation to uphold in the business - is wrong, or that 10 mins research would fail to confirm it from what WP laughably regards as a more "reliable" source, like a newspaper? Try Googling BBC Worldwide & other relevant terms, or register on their site like I said. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think these lists are sufficiently neutral and reliable. By adding them to our category structure we give them credibility they don't deserve. __meco (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. The purpose of the catgory is clear and so are its contents. The articles are not being deleted so this category is appropriate to hold them. Hmains (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but whether the articles are being deleted or not is irrelevant to whether the category should be kept. And I agree that the purpose of the category is clear, but there's no indication in any of its constituent articles that they are actually related to one another. Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number (most?) say this, but I've not seen any such "indications" with references. But actually it cannot be doubted that most are produced under license, from this sort of thing or this - penultimate para. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm torn between a rename to something like Category:Greatest Britons TV series spin-offs or deleting given the existence of a list which can better address citing to demonstrate that all of these shows are actually spin offs. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Vegaswikian on this. Honestly the debate about sourcing above, alone, is pushing me towards listifying. See also Category:Television programs remade oversea (which is about to be nominated for a rename : ) - jc37 05:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was hoping that someone would present a case for the rename over a delete. Failing that deleting based on the discussions here seems to be the best move. Having a list makes this an easy decision at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about renaming to Category:Greatest nationals (TV series). "Series" is intended to be a plural here, but the word is the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 13 October 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_October_8&oldid=1074801392"