Category:Fraternity and Sorority National Conference Lists[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:Rename. Proposal fixes the capitalization but also suggests a slight rewording. I don't think "national" is necessary in this instance. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename with or without "national" The capitalization of the current wording implies that this is an official title, when it isn't. The rename is fine, but Category:Lists of fraternity and sorority national conferences might make the inclusion criteria a bit more intuitive. I would support either name. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon thinking a bit more about it, you may be right that the "national" should be kept. Either way is fine with me too, but I'm thinking that maybe on balance we should just make it Category:Lists of fraternity and sorority national conferences. I suppose it would be possible to have an article that is a list of non-national fraternity or sorority conferences, but currently I don't think there are any. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (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:Roman Catholic female orders and 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.
Nominator's rationale: *Rename "Roman Catholic women's orders and societies." "Female" sounds funny. ("Female DISorders"? What?!!) We don't have "Male orders" ("Mail orders" apparently sounded too funny to even try it! :) Student7 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Funny" or not (and I really don't see why it should be), male and female orders is the usual way these are referred to in the Roman Catholic Church. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually it is 8,210 hits for "women", to 5,610 hits for "female" on google, eliminating mirror sites. Even as early as 1910, the Catholic Encyclopedia was referring to womens orders. See, for example, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06217a.htm. It may have some precedent in Victorian literature, but I never have heard it used in real life. Student7 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I can't find any mention of either "women's orders" or "female orders" in that article you've just cited! And, as we should all know, ghits is a very poor way of determining usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found references such as "In the course of time female orders assumed this work" in the following Catholic Encyclopedia link: [1]. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. You found references to "female orders" yet are opposing its use on Wikipedia... -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! - you're right. Consider my support withdrawn. (creeping away quietly) Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great nineteenth century stuff. We even had "female academies" in the US and probably the UK back then. We don't employ that term any more though. It is obsolete. Student7 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a US/UK thing, which would be a WP:ENGVAR issue. But are you really saying the term "female" is never used in the US these days? That's certainly not my experience in the UK. I'm a police officer, and we use the term all the time, as an adjective and a noun - I'm pretty sure US law enforcement agencies do too, and I'm absolutely certain it's not restricted to the police. "Female academies" isn't used, but that's not actually the issue. Just because one usage of a term is obsolete doesn't mean other usages are. I have studied Roman Catholic religious orders pretty extensively, and as far as I'm aware "female order" and "male order" are still the common terms used. "Sounding funny" is not a valid reason to change normal usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized it was an ENGVAR situation. We have rolled up US Transportation into "Tranport" categories because that was the preferred one abroad. I suppose we can do something similar here though it may be the reverse. Possible Womens Orders would prevail. We will have to see. "Male order" is never used in the US and, I suspect, Canada. I have never heard the term "Female order" used instead of Womens Order but rarely is it necessary to differentiate. It is usually obvious in context.
You want something funny? Try "Cricket Field" instead of "Cricket Pitch." If we had one in the US, that is what we would call it! I think we are both talking about ENGVAR which does involve sounding funny in one language or the other, as they always do. Student7 (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Female order" may not turn up in everyday speech, but it is not incorrect. Religious women belong to female orders; the order is female and religious as opposed to male and religious or to secular. For example, the Poor Clares are often described as the female order of the Franciscans, and a Ghit comparison of '"women's order" catholic' versus '"female order" catholic' favors the latter form resoundingly.- choster (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not so. Eliminating mirror sites produces a majority for "women." Probably a good deal more than that in the US which uses "female order" rarely, if at all. Student7 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2011 (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:Delete I have a number of concerns. For one thing, it seems premature to have a category when there's no article on the individual. Furthermore, his involvement in most of these recordings is limited and doesn't constitute a defining characteristic. Even if the category is kept, its name needs to be changed since none of the albums are actually by Leo Abrahams. Pichpich (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Change - I recently added the Leo Abrahams page, though it's not completely filled out yet (still have sections in draft form). A complete discography is there, tho. I agree the category isn't well named; my goal at the time was to keep it simple. He has collaborated equally with other artists on some of the albums, but on others, was simply a session musician. Perhaps there should be different sub-categories? I believe a way to organize albums he has contributed to would be fascinating in order to trace guitar and writing styles (many of these albums were influential in the mainstream), but I have little experience with creating categories and/or subcategories. Cheers, Sloggerbum (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any of the albums in the category are actually credited to Leo Abrahams, I don't see them. Categorization by any other scheme by participation on these would be overcategorization because then any individual who contributed some part on any album could then have a similar category. Thanks for creating the article for Leo Abrahams, Sloggerbum, where I think his list of collaborations, etc., should suffice in this case. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As discussed, these are not accurately described as albums by Leo Abrahams. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:56, 18 March 2011 (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: Per a a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, where it was suggested that we should use "players" when the club is a football club and "footballers" when the club is a multi-sport club. All four categories included in this nomination are for football clubs. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (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:Keep, revisit if the articles Docudrama and [Documentary theatre]] are readdressed. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that The Laramie Project is claimed by both parent articles, neither of which is brimming over with citations. But at least docudrama is an unquestionably established term. I think this category issue isn't resolvable without dealing with the notability or merger of documentary theatre. Mangoe (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Docudrama is an established form, though I am more used to it on TV than in theatre. The object is to present historical events in dramatic form, which is different from other forms of historic drama, which often have an element of fiction in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timrollpickering (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2011 (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.
Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States by century[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 all. They're clearly all in Presidents/Vice Presidents of the United States. If an individual article loses an important category, it can be manually restored.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them, per the previous discussion. This is really just category creep without much usefulness. -- Ynot? 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and upmerge if necessary. Pointless categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2011 (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: Usual convention is to have “locomotives” plural and lower-case Hugo999 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I thought perhaps that "BHP Locomotive" had been some sort of subsidiary or operating company, but can find no evidence to that effect.- choster (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2011 (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.
