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. --Xdamrtalk 11:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category holds only two subcategories and the parent article. The winners/contestants categories are fine, but do we really need a category that does nothing but hold two more categories? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSometimes that is very usefull and accepted for classification purposes. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but one category to hold two subcats? Too narrow. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:10, 9 October 2009 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, main article is at Kellogg College, Oxford and the pattern of categories for colleges of the University of Oxford is for ", Oxford" to be included in the category name even when (as here) there is no other college with a similar name elsewhere. Category is empty at present, the contents having apparently been transferred across already at some point. BencherliteTalk 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the first is a category redirect to the second, which is correctly named. This seems analogous to the Living People cfd ... I don't myself see that there is any great problem. Occuli (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category redirect was added whilst I was nominating the category, having seen a comment on someone's talk page that the category had been emptied out of process; if I hadn't seen that comment, and if the redirect had been in place when I first looked, I wouldn't have bothered. BencherliteTalk 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have checked the history. (It is a way of circumventing cfd to create a redirect rather than an empty category.) Occuli (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2009 (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.
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.
Support Bencherlite's alternative rename; hadn't noticed the content are all cases. Tim! (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (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:Fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area[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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. Category:Endemic fauna of California only has 32 entries and is more than capable of handling this. Alternately, rename to Category:Endemic fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area, but that would only apply to three of the four species included (one has a range in California outside the Bay Area), and such a small category should not be maintained. Postdlf (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. This is the only state-specific mammal category that I can find; there are no subcategories in Category:Mammals of the United States (not even this one). None of the included species are endemic to Michigan, and only about three included articles even mention Michigan in any way. Instead, such widely ranging entries as North American River Otter (!), Coyote (!!), and until today, House Mouse (!!!) illustrate how ill-advised it is to categorize by such overly-specific (and from the point of view of biota, completely arbitrary) locales. The list entries in Category:Snakes of the United States by state point to the better practice at the subnational level. Postdlf (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Unnecessary to specify what states a species appears in via a category. If applied consistently some species would have 50 such categories, and animals do not follow human political distinctions anyway. Only one disagreement with the nom: I would merge to Category:Mammals of North America, because the political division known as the "United States" is just as irrelevant to mammal distribution as a state-level political division. A continent, on the other hand, has some relevance. --RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (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:Vietnam War Coast Guard ships 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The ships in this category were all used for patrol duties, so the proposed merge target makes the best sense. Ships categorized by era or conflict are sorted by type of ship and/or country, but not by operator. There are no other "[Conflict/era] Coast Guard ships of the United States" categories. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (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.
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. --Xdamrtalk 10:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
extended proposal: and restrict it, by explanation on the category page, to Christian topics that are clearly defined by their NT usage. - 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is a promised follow-up to the recent renaming of equivalent "Old Testament" categories as "Hebrew Bible" and "Septuagint". It will be consistent with the new title Category:Hebrew words and phrases in the Hebrew Bible. Also, "New Testament Greek" has a linguistic meaning, but that is not the meaning intended by the name of the first category. As the NT was all written in Greek, "New Testament Hebrew" in particular may sound jarring. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time seeing why these categories exist at all. The Hebrew ones seem to have originated in the Old Testament, and are used there more frequently; the Latin ones include curious entries such as Centurion, which is far from known by association with the New Testament. Why not rename to "Foo words and phrases originating in the New Testament" and then prune? Postdlf (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defence: Only phrases originated in the New Testament, not words. It seems useful to me for the category to include words that existed before the NT but became notable in English because of their use in the NT, e.g. koinonia, paraclete, logos (Christianity). - Fayenatic(talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how do these categories target those words from simply any words used in the NT? The way these categories are named, if it's found in the NT, then it goes in, regardless of whether it's notable in English because of or for that usage. Postdlf (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appropriate to add text on the category pages defining the purpose of the categories. It's not necessary for the entirety of this to be summed up in category names.
As for Centurion, I suspect many modern people - lacking a classical education - would know the word mainly from the NT; or for those of a certain age, John Wayne's film role with its memorable line from the NT. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks you assume too much familiarity with the NT. I know what a centurion is (Life of Brian, anyone?), but had no idea the word was even used in the NT (and have no idea what John Wayne film you are citing). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Centurion" is known mainly from the NT? Don't kids read Asterix books anymore? I certainly completed reading all of the Asterix books before I read the NT. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only said "many people", not all, perhaps not even most. But toss the centurion (PAF!), it's not the point. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category description pages usually aren't worth a damn to counter broad category naming; everything that literally belongs in them eventually finds its way there. But regardless, if even under the criteria stated on the page centurion should be in there, it's too broad. Unless it's specifically of Biblical origin, or primarily of significance to Judeo-Christian theology/doctrine, I don't see why its reference in the Bible should be categorized. We don't classify subjects generally by cultural works that merely reference them, particularly where as here it can suggest preference for a particular sectarian perspective on world history. Lots of Roman things were mentioned in the NT because the events it describes took place in the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire is not a subtopic of the NT, nor is it or its elements defined by it. In sum, I think the scope of these is far too broad. Postdlf (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hadn't meant to justify keeping Centurion in the category, I was just taking issue with the initial assertion about that word (after all, even Life of Brian is a parody of the NT). Actually the Latin category has a definition already: Latin loanwords in the Greek New Testament text. I think that might be better done as a list. List of loanwords in the New Testament would cover the small Aramaic and Hebrew categories as well, leaving only the Greek category which I think is justified. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listifying is totally fine with me. But even with the Greek one, you still have entries like akrasia, which are not primarily NT/Christian topics. There needs to be a way to narrow the category to exclude ones like that from ones like logos (Christianity) or pentecost that are clearly defined by their NT usage. Postdlf (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think that a definition on the category page is the way to go. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us compare the Glossary of Stoic terms. Most of the words did not originate in Stoic philosophy but have a a slicely different meaning and context. So what about Glossary of the New Testament and leave in the categories only the Christianity-related entries? Catalographer (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting idea, and would probably be a good project. However, it would not replace this analysis by language. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge, OCAT. There are no other subdivisions of Beetles of North America; not for any other U.S. state, and not even for the U.S. None of the included articles even mention Michigan, let alone provide a basis for categorizing by it. Postdlf (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge for reasons similar to those in the nomination immediately below. Articles about plant and animal species should not be categorized based on political divisions that are observed by no species other than humans. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete, serious OCAT. There are no corresponding categories for other U.S. states, nor are there even Category:Hemiptera of the United States, or Category:Hemiptera of North America. The three included species are actually widely distributed over North America, and so not only have no particular relationship with Michigan, their articles of course do not mention it. We should never categorize such widely distributed species by subnational entities. They are already in Category:Insects of North America. Postdlf (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Not only is there nothing Michigan-specific about any of these species, I see no reason to relate any species to a political entity such as a state (unless it is the official state insect or some such, which hardly seems to require a category). Categorizing species by their distribution may make sense, but we should be using geographical features (such as continents) for that, not political divisions. --RL0919 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2009 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, standardization is necessary, it's quite strange that three categories related to the same club use three different variants of club name — NickK (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Where are the dots in F.C.? If we don't do it now, we'll have to do it later. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2009 (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.
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. I also agree these could be sent to speedy under criterion #1. The criterion now states that "This includes grammatical or typographic corrections that have been approved for similar cases in a full CfD."Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let's refer all further FC -> F.C. to speedy. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as long as the parent article is at "F.C." There are a lot of articles at "FC", though. Jafeluv (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2009 (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.
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 DELETED at request of only author. Postdlf (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Or, I suppose technically upmerge to parent categories. I see no reason for this category to exist just to hold two articles. It's much more useful to have these in the parent category along with all the other toy museums in the United States. I contacted the category creator but received no response. PowersT 14:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents as suggested. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didnt respond quick enough for you LtPowers. Anyway, I merged the articles up, and put a db-author on it dm (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as category is empty and appears unneeded. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2009 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated for consistency and clarity. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to that monstrously long proposed name. No choice, for disambiguation's sake. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2009 (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.
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. Jafeluv (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated for consistency and clarity. - Fayenatic(talk) 17:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Imperative for disambiguation, as per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (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:Vietnam War ships of the Republic of Vietnam[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.
I see now why you propose "of South Vietnam", since this is a country subcategory, and not a navy subcategory. But why the "Vietnam" prefix? It should then be Category:War ships of South Vietnam. Or is there something else I misunderstood? Debresser (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, in that case I completely agree with the nomination. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (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 in Las Vegas[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. Jafeluv (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2009 (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.
