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 and distribute to subcategories as needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge. The meanings of the categories are synonymous. Not specifying a particular location generally implies "in the world". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two are not synonymous. The "Roman Catholic Church" is an institution, whereas Catholicism is a system of knowledge based on particular religious traditions. A look at the category's contents shows that it is for the intersection of Catholic teaching with the mundane, as opposed to its theology or the history and organization of the Catholic Church itself, analogous to such categories as Category:Philosophy and society (as opposed to Category:Philosophy) or Category:Practice of law (as opposed to Category:Law). I don't care for the current name, but I would not see it done away with so quickly. Providence Hospital, say, is not part of the "Roman Catholic Church" but it operates because of and according to Catholic teachings; it is an example of Catholicism "in the world" so to speak, but it is not owned or operated by the Church itself. The distinction came up during CfD 2012/Jun/7 RCC organizations, but there was no consensus as to how to proceed.- choster (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have struck my comment given choster's explanation, which makes sense to me. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Distribute contents into subcategories of the target. The target states that it is primarily a container category. Some of this category is about external relations of the RC Church; some of it may be about satellite organisations operating independently, but conforming to Catholic teaching. When the category has been purged, it should be possible to see what is left and therefore how it should be renamed and its scope specified. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no coherent criteria to distinguish the two. No real good reason to either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Roman Catholicism is the church. It's not possible to separate the two in any logical fashion. In any event, nearly everything categorized in this category is church materials rather than people calling themselves Roman Catholics divorced entirely from the church or its various arms and programs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Choster. Also RCC is a container cat. If merged, it would simply get diffused again. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as weird name. sounds like it should be accompanied by roman Catholicism in space.146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2012 (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: Is it proper for a user to create a category to categorize user pages? User has added all the page in the category to the category. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (should be speedied). User is frustrated because WP:NPOV and WP:RS limit what enthusiasts can write to promote certain ideas, particularly after the arbitration case (WP:ARBSAQ). The category is just playing around and has no encyclopedic purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a misuse of category space. It is not appropriate to have a user category for one user (other than sockpuppet categories). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. No real purpose here on the encyclopedia. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2012 (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.
Place names of Irish origin in 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:delete. I did see and take into account the keeps, but they are outnumbered by the deletes who bring up logical reasons and argue that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep a specific item. Also, I've been closing a lot of the other place name discussions similar to this one and they have shown a much stronger consensus to delete these as trivial ways to categorize. So I feel that this closure is in line with a broader consensus as well. delldot∇. 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale. This is categorization by shared name. The articles are not on place names but places. Those that do assert an origin in most cases lack a source. They also almost entirely lack any explnation of how the name was chosen. However when they do explain that it makes it clear this is a categorization by shared name. Of the 10 places named Avoca only one explains how the names was chosen. I quote that article "The name is thought to come from Avoca in Ireland. The change to Avoca is reported to be the deathbed wish of a young girl who admired the name[citation needed]." This is characterization by a trivial fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. On a procedural note, it would have been far better to nominate all of these categories at once as the rationale is identical; less clutter at CfD and easier to centralize discussion. But whatever.- choster (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a useful category to have. However, the Place names of Ulster origin should be re-directed to Place names of Irish origin. ~Asarlaí 13:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have flagged this to WP:GEOG but realise there are now 6 parallel discussions on-going that want to delete place-related etymologies. What a mess this creates for others to sort out! Can the proposers please relist all in one go so we can see what it is that these changes hope to achieve? Ephebi (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not relist them together. We did that already and got bogged down on specific details on one discussion. The Irish names as it is are far more ephemeral and less linked to actual Irishness than the Swedish names are linked to Swedishness or the Czech names are linked to Czechness. I am in shock that people want to categorize things based that get their names based on the whims of a dieing girl, but evidently that is enough for some people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not a newcomer to CfD. You know exactly how to group related discussions together while still allowing separate discussion on each category in the proposal. If there is a very large number of categories, you also know how to request a bot to assist with tagging. So, there is no need to take offense at the eminently reasonable suggestion that CfD participants not be dragged through a half dozen of the same discussion.- choster (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to request a bot to assist, I am not sure why you assume I know any such thing. Anyway, I did go through and tag every relevant category about a year ago, but people still only focused on the first category, and then later in a seperate discussion deleted the first category. After having seen people entirely ignore everything but the Spanish category, I am going about it this way this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the origin of Avoca mentioned above shows that this category involves naming that is particularly trivial in its connection to the country involved, that is not uniform throughout the categories. I think seperate consideration is worth while.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with vigor. The few articles I have checked do not contain the information that one place was specifically named after another, therefore this is a category of "coincidence of name similarity" and can only be non-notable trivia. This is not to say a referenced list might not be a welcome addition to WP, but a category based on the ability of one or more editors to create a category of similar named places is not welcome. The first and main sentence of WP:CAT states, quite clearly and firmly, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." These categories don't even touch that -even if they are vaguely amusing and interesting --Richhoncho (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the above remark about "long ago", this category was not formed until November of 2011. It was put up for deletion in a mass discussion in January of 2012. That was turned down mainly because people focused on the Spanish-origin names and their issues. Those names were then seperately deleted shortly later, and no one bothered to try to delete the rest of the category after that. The truly trivial nature of the connection here should give pause to having the category at all. This looks like it is normally about as trivial as Category:American place names of Greek origin or Category:American place names of Palestine origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then there is Baltimore which was not named after a place as much as after a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the trivialness of this category's use is shown by the fact that up until I removed it as being totally wrong Galway, New York was in this category, even though the article explicitly states the name of the place derives from a place in Scotland and not from a place in Ireland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; again no objection to listifying if each entry is properly sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman. Multiple precedents. Nothing particularly odd either about Ireland-U.S. as they share a lot, certainly not less than the Welsh, English, Dutch and so on. --86.40.98.64 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well we just decided to delete the Dutch category, and the other categories are all up for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Lists have been created for French, Spanish, Czech, Swedish, and other origins. The Native American categories have been slotted to be listified. The Dutch category was deleted without being listified, because reasons. Why are some of these categories being listified and others not? What is the reason behind this? Vis-a-visconti (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (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 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:Rename. We should use the plural, but I have not taken this to the Speedy page as perhaps we should use the Arabic plural Category:Ayat (see article Ayah, about verses of the Qur'an). – FayenaticLondon 19:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ayahs, this is the English wikipedia, and we pluralize words according to English conventions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ayat. The English-language word "ayah", which is pluralised to "ayahs", is defined by the OED as "A native-born nurse or maidservant, employed esp. by Europeans in India and other parts of South Asia." To avoid this English-language meaning, we should use the proper plural for this term. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ayat -- At first I assumed that this was about Indian nannies, which (according to concise OED) is ultimately of Portuguese origin. There is room for confusion here. However Ayah (disambiguation) shows we have no article on that, only on nanny. The category needs a head note defining the subject and the same dab-capnote as the main article Ayah. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ayahs (Qur'an). The term is still used for maids etc in some part so the world, per Peterkingiron. Ephebi (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (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:Rename. The category should use the plural, and "suras" is used consistently in the article sura (about chapters of the Qur'an. – FayenaticLondon 18:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in two sub-sub-cats that only contain 1 page on the relevant sura. (The remaining sub-cats of Category:Suras by number are different as they contain pages about ayat (verses) within the sura.) – FayenaticLondon 19:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename We categorize with plurals. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You jumped in while I was still building the nom... – FayenaticLondon
Rename and merge per nom. The English plural of sura is suras.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support everyone else: obviously right, without prjudice to the re-creation of the merged categories if they can be properly populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2012 (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.
Merge. Seems that I was ignorant about already present category. --Lakisan97 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2012 (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: Almost nothing in here is a navbox. I also suggest removing the plural as is usual with template categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2012 (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: Single entry category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: renaming basketballers to basketball players to agree with usage in nearly every other category on basketball players. Waacstats (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the standard usage is basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2012 (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 parent and decade categories. Keep 1990 and all subsequent years. Merge all years up to 1989 into their decade categories. I felt that there was too much opposition to declare a consensus to delete all articles, but only one person objected to this option. Since she was arguing for ease of finding classical albums, hopefully she will be happy with this option too. delldot∇. 07:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. One of the concerns here is categorizing album articles by the intersection of year and genre. Albums are already to be categorized by year within the article and most artists have album categories that will have a genre category (typically of the "[genre] albums by Fooian artists" variety). Maybe we want to do this for classical albums only? Because this seems like this could get out of hand if this method of categorization spreads to other genres. For example, something like Live at the Royal Albert Hall (Adele video) by Adele could end being categorized in not only Category:2011 live albums, Category:2011 video albums, but also Category:2011 pop albums and Category:2011 soul albums, not to mention the standard categorization by genre in Category:Adele (singer) albums. I guess the album articles within these categories would have to be upmerged to the appropriate Category:Albums by year subcat and a subcat of Category:Classical albums if not already in one. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was. The question is should the genre "classical" be treated as a special case under this categorization scheme or should we start categorizing every album by an intersection of year and genre (whether be jazz, country, soul, rock, etc.). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 10:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I appreciate that some work went into this, but there is no scheme for splitting up albums by date and genre, and I'm not sure that it's wise. Do we really need Category:1998 trip hop albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response A compilation album is not a genre of music, but a type of album. We need ways to diffuse Category:Compilation albums and by year, genre, record label, artist nationality, and artist are ways of doing that. We also need to diffuse Category:Classical albums, but by genre and artist nationality are sufficient. We do not need to diffuse each given album by year category, as any one of those is pretty navigable and already diffused by album type or being a debut album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. I have made a note of this discussion at the classical music project. I do not consider myself competent to show a !vote, but would comment that I note that a film has been included in one of these categories and I am not convinced pop songs played by an orchestra become "classical". So I wondered at the definition of "classical" and the WP article Classical music isn't much help save to suggest the category names don't match the main article. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I have serious doubts about the notability of the articles I have managed to navigate down to anyway, but in any case except for a very, very few historic recordings, the question anyone asks of a classical recording is not "what year was it recorded?" but rather "who is the performer?" and "what's on it?" Most of the historic recordings are notable because of the performer, not the actual date. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete—I have doubts about classifying "classical" music albums by year of issue. My first question is, which year of issue? For example, Naxos released the complete historical recordings of Enrico Caruso from 2000, but each of the 12 albums contains recordings that were issued in at least two different years between 1902 and 1920. As Mangoe says, performer and works are of much more interest than year (or decade). For example, if I want to compare Emil Gilels' interpretation of a Brahms sonata with that of Vladimir Ashkenazy's then it's not the year of recording or issue that is of interest. I also note that this category tree is doubled with both "by decade" and "by year" at the same level, and yet the "by decade" categories only contain "by year" subcategories. At the very least, this needs sorting out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)`[reply]
Keep parent and decade categories. Keep 1990 and all subsequent years. Merge all years up to 1989 into their decade categories. Miniscule "by year" categories are a menace and need to be merged into a longer period. Where this applies can easily be observed from the fact that many are missing (i.e. redlinks) or have a single article. Categories are a navigation aid, not a means of providing bullet points for articles. If the year is relevant, it should be in the text. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Peterkingiron's proposal, I am not at all convinced that classical is simply a genre in above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's difficult to find these when they are included in the same category as pop and rock albums. You can see from the "Year in Music" articles how the latter dominate, to the extent that classical music is completely ignored in summaries of events. If it's reasonable to have categories for albums by specific artists or bands, then I believe it's reasonable to have a category for classical albums. Deb (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2012 (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 guess the question here is this defining and it is objective and not subjective? I guess a museum can be included if it has a single dinosaur. But is that defining? I'm open to a rename and cleanup if someone can figure out a name that makes inclusion objective and not subjective while being defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delete (for now) I've been to the American Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum of Natural History and the Peabody Museum of Natural History recently enough to remember the collections, and while all of these museums had distinctive and memorable dinosaur exhibits, they also had other collections and exhibits that would dwarf even the largest apatosaurus. There foes not appear to be a corresponding parent article for dinosaur museum and I'm not sure how you could draw a line between those museums that focus on dinosaurs and those that have some dinosaur fossils included in their collections. I could be convinced otherwise if an article could be written, but for now I agree that this category should be made extinct. Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as far as I can tell there isn't really such a thing as a "pure" dinosaur museum. I.e. one that doesn't explore the other lineages of life on earth as well. And a category that combines Ed Leith Cretaceous Menagerie and Oxford University Museum of Natural History on the basis of both having dinosaurs somewhere on display, is pushing the envelope a long way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Category:Fossil museums, though that is almost as bad. Category:Dinosaur museums in the United States needs to be treated similarly. There do appear to be a few museums that are specifically concerned with dinosaurs. The problem with these (and the Fossil one) is that they are categorising museums that include fossils in their collections: that seems too like a performance by performer category: most are either geological museums or museums fo natural history (concerend both with living and extinct species). We would need to have articles on the fossil (or geological or palaeontology) department of a museum and categorise that, not the whole museum. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Natural history museums. This is the more standard form of naming them and avoids overly specific categorization that will generally lead to over-categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
