Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 9

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

December 9[edit]

Category:People born with a cleft palate[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 action required; no category was nominated; just a question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I hope I've chosen the right place to propose/discuss this (if not I apologize), but I've "created"(or maybe not?) the category "Category:People born with cleft palate" I don't know if it is finished (after a while I had to give up, because I could NOT find the template so it would be proper(by which I mean it wouldnt show:"Creating....").
Furthermore I'm unsure if such category can survive wiki-rules. I figured that this birth defect was quite striking for everybody who (in the case of Jürgen Habermas) listens or looks at these persons.
Looking forward for your imput
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have created the empty Category:People born with cleft palate. However I suspect that this will be deleted as it is not defining. Further, my understanding is that this is easily corrected by surgery. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I thought it would be autofilled by creating the category in an article...but I thought wrong...:( #wpnoob


I am still fighting to find the right templates..but so for the jungle of information is defeating me :/ well, defining it is for the given example...it leads / can lead to a severe speech impediment...I have a list of people with it...but I'm unfortunately involved in little edit war, over technicalities(apparently references do sometimes not matter)...at times it seems wp is 70% of that :/
well, thanks a lot Vegaswikian and I wish you a good n8/day :)
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 00:57, 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.

Category:Metatheory of religion[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 to delete. In weighing this decision I have not taken into account ad hominem arguments like "you don't know enough about this" because they do not really address the point being discussed, and there's no good way for me to verify whether it's true. I'm also not that convinced by the oft-repeated argument that other topics have theories categories; the need for this category does not follow from that. But I feel that there's too much opposition to this proposal from people who think it's a useful and logical way of categorizing for me to say there's a consensus to delete here. delldot ∇. 06:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether to rename to "Metatheories of religion" can be dealt with separately, there's not enough discussion of that question here for me to be able to make any call about it from this discussion. delldot ∇. 06:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Google search indicates only main/only significant usage is at wikipedia by creator of this category Editor2020 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The reason given by the nominator is not a reason at all. This category makes it possible to organize content appropriately. It would be a serious loss if it was deleted. If you understand what a metatheory is and you understand philosophy of religion, then you understand whytthis is a very helpful way to organize things. Furthermore, if we consider the larger organizational picture here at Wikipedia, we see that the elimination of this category leaves no path from these articles to the Fundamental categories. This deletion discussion needs to address how we propose to house these articles in that organizational scheme before it is deleted. Every field of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, etc) has a "theories" category, and I wonder what the proposer suggests we do to organize these kinds of articles under philosophy of religion? Please see the philosophy of science category for the similar subcategory which has been a very beneficial, in that regard. Greg Bard (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greg. Request for explanation. I think I understand what you mean about the Theories categories, but is there any reason this one is a "Meta"-Theory category?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A metatheory is a type of theory that explains how theories are formed (or constructed, revised, etcetera). While there are many and varied theories of religion (i.e. Christianity, Buddhism, etcetera), there are also many and varied metatheories that also inform the formation of those theories (Humanistic Chistianity, Humanistic Buddhism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Fundamentalist Islam, etc). Humanism isn't a religion, Atheism isn't a religion, "Fundamentalism" isn't a religion but these metatheories inform the creation of particular religious beliefs. If we are to organize these things properly in Wikipedia, this category is necessary. Again, every field of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, etcetera,) has a theories category (ethical theories, metaphysical theories, etcetera). Just how are we going to deal with the philosophy of religion category without it? Please compare to the philosophy of science category. There are many and varied scientific theories, and there is a category for that. But "Empiricism" is not itself a scientific theory, but rather a philosophical one. Do you see what I mean? Greg Bard (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
If I understand correctly by this categorizing method a religion is a theory so a theory of religion is a metatheory? Just making sure I understand, but see the question of Arthur Rubin below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What benefit do we achieve by not merging the Metatheories and Theories categories? Neither seems over-loaded, and I wonder if we can expect that in the long run the distinction between the two can be understood and used by editors--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Religion isn't philosophy. Philosophy isn't religion. We should not merge the two because a metatheory about religion may be limited by reason and logic, and the scholarly methodology of philosophy, whereas a religion is not. It would seem to be a crucial distinction.Greg Bard (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The phrase can be found in some works available from google books, but of greater import is the simple fact that this is right. Categorization ought to be an option for metatheories of religion, as of anything else, because this is their proper supraorganizational aspect. It is a fundamental category for classifying things which are not themselves religions, but sit above the field of religion and examine what branches of ideation religions fall into. And so I would plead it be kept. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is someone willing to maintain the difference between Category:Metatheory of religion (which, technically, should be Cateogry:Metatheories of religion) and Category:Theories of religion? (I see the difference after reading the category descriptions, but not all editors will do that.) If not, they should be merged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this is to be kept, the order of inclusion should be considered. Logically, Category:Theories of religion is an example of a "metatheory of religion". I would think that "theories' would be included in "metatheories", rather than the other way around. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction that this category makes is between philosophy and religion. They are not the same. While a religion abandons reason and logic, a metatheory about religion does not. It is a crucial distinction, and merging the theories of religion and the metatheories of religion would be quite ignorant. Greg Bard (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every metatheory is a theory. However, a theory is a metatheory relative to the subject matter which is being considered. So your question brings into clarity for me that neither is really supposed to be a subcategory of the other at all. They are "sibling" categories that belong in supracategories based on what academic areas study them. In other words, a "theory of religion" is not a type of "metatheory of religion" and a "metatheory of religion" is not a (or "just another") "theory of religion." However, in at least some cases, in order to believe some "theories of religion" you necessarily subscribe to some "metatheories of religion" because it is a sine qua non (e.g. you have to be a monotheist to be a christian). In order for a theory to be a "theory of religion" one who believes it has subscribed to a particular religion. Meanwhile, in order for a theory to be a "metatheory of religion" one who believes it doesn't necessarily believe any particular "theory of religion." It is not a simple matter, but I think what I take from it is that neither is a subcat of the other. Your observation that they should be phrased "metatheories" and "theories" rather than "metatheory" and "theory" is also valid. Another important reason for the distinction between metatheories and theories, is that only metatheories belong under the philosophy category tree, as "theories of religion" necessarily implies a departure from the philosophical methodolgy requiring logic and reason. Whereas, a metatheory of religion may very well adhere strictly to empiricism, logic, reason, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Further clarification is needed, or it will be impossible to distinguish theories from metatheories. We agree that Monotheism is not a religion, but is Christianity, or are the separate divisions separate religions? Are theories about the divisions of Christianity "theories" or "metatheories"? I would need more clarification to determine whether the distinction you describe is sufficiently sharp for categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good question, and as you know categories do evolve based on patterns that arise in existing categories. So to answer your question, Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Calvinism are, in fact, theories of religion, specifically "Christian theories of religion." However, I really don't see the need for that level of category development at this time (the name needs work too). Those type of things tend to already have categories dealing with them. Trinitarianism, and Unitarianism are also Christian theories. There is a sense in which Trinitarianism, and Unitarianism are also metatheories, which is why I said that a theory is only a metatheory relative to some subject matter (Are there "Trinitarian Universalists?" Theoretically, there could be I suppose.) However, Trinitarianism, and Unitarianism are theories about a particular issue. Perhaps someday there will be a sufficiently rich category structure to deal with all that. As it stands the more general categories I propose will suffice until those patterns develop. Similarly, within the "metaphysical theories" category there are theories that only deal with causality, or only deal with time, or only deal with substance; and they reside there together without any crucial need to specialize subcategories within metaphysical theories. To get back onto track, I think I should reiterate that "theories of religion" belong under "religion" while "metatheories of religion" belong under philosophy. If you ask many atheists, they will object very strongly that it is a "religion." So this is another example of why I see the distinction as useful. Greg Bard (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First comment about the nomination rationale. I still want to make sure I understand the categorizing logic, but perhaps I should already mention that I find the nominating rationale a little weak. We do not need to follow RS rules in order to create a good categorization system. Categorization systems within WP can be original work. They just have to be logical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In spite of what several people have stated, I find the rationale at least theoretically compelling. And searching is not particularly promising: I get exactly three GBook hits for the phrase, and each of them talk about it somewhat in passing. And if I am reading them correctly, all three are more or less negative about the concept. This notion that we can do OR for categories I, um, categorically reject, and in the case of a non-intersection category such as this a really think we have to be able to expect a main article. I do see a possible main article in metatheories of religion in the social sciences, but its content would dictate an entirely different category membership. Also, the actual categorization of articles doesn't seem to follow a definite pattern. For example, Deism is member, but I could just as well object that it is a theory of religion, if not a religion itself. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose that the members of WikiProject Philosophy who work in this subject area do about the fact that every field of philosophy will have a "theories" category except this one if this proposal passes? Philosophy of religion is not the same as comparative religion. Furthermore, the articles in the metatheories category belong under the philosophy category tree, while the articles under the theories category do not. Furthermore, what do you suggest we do to address the housing of these articles under the Theories, or more generally, the Fundamental categories category tree? Please offer some solution to these problems that this proposal has caused, or please reconsider your vote. Also furthermore, your "categorical rejection" is not funny. If we used that standard for categories, there would be a decimation of the category structure. This proposal is a problem, and if you are going to support it, please offer a solution. If you don't have a solution, I would respectfully request that you respect that the category is of value to other people and leave it alone. Greg Bard (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing category Category:Theories of religion seems adequate. And Category:Metatheories (oops, Category:Metatheory), could fall under Category:Theories. It depends on what level of abstraction you want to deal with. I really don't see the parallelism between Science and Religion in this instance. Category:Metatheory of science is easily distinguishable from Category:Scientific theories, while there is no such thing as Category:Religious theories.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any theory that depends on a religious belief is a "religious theory." I would prefer to keep those separate from philosophy. Like I already said, an atheist would find it unacceptable to be classified under religious belief. The purpose of this category is to separate philosophy from religion. You do not see that as useful?! Greg Bard (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Category:Theories of and about religion? I no longer see a credible distinction; religious beliefs as to the structure of another religion go where? Logically, it would be both categories. And they're all still under Category:Theories and Category:Religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a waste. There is nothing wrong with this category at all, and people who don't know what they are doing are going to delete it. Could you please support keeping this category? I have made my case, and your alternative proposal is ridiculous and unnecessary. What is necessary is this category as formulated. Greg Bard (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted by whom? With all due respect, this was a well thought out category, and I don't think people opposed to it know what they are doing at all. What do you propose we do about the problems its absence will cause as I have explained? Greg Bard (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Every field of philosophy has a "theories category." This is because comparing and contrasting theories is a major part of what philosophy does. This proposal is absolutely unacceptable, and I want to know what the people supporting it propose that we do to address this problem. Are ANY of ose even involved with the philosophy project? We are headed for another Wikipedia fail. The goal is to provide a separation between religion and philosophy and its absense with break that. If you are just put off by the word "metatheory" please admit to yourself when you may not have enough knowledge to make an educated decision. This is absolutely ridiculous. Greg Bard (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that every such field of theorizing ought to have such metatheoretical inquiries does not compel them to actually have it. As I said, the only actual metatheory of religion that I could find evidence for is a sociological investigation of how religions originate that assumes they are all false. Much of what you have included as metatheory is already recorded as just philosophy of religion; other parts are just, well, religion. A category which we are going to have to argue at length about as to what's actually in it is simply not right with our policies. Mangoe (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't think you know enough about what you are doing to make an educated decision here, especially if you are relying on the Wikipedia content itself as your justification. I realize that this response is not pleasant or endearing but there is an organizational structure in place, and you don't seem to understand the value of it. Please change your vote, or recuse yourself from this discussion. I also realize that there is almost no chance that you will comply with my request, but this is all that I have in my power to do, having explained it sufficiently to no avail. I will be replacing this category in some form for sure, and I would rather avoid being the subject of further conflict and wasted time and effort. Please relent. Greg Bard (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not have a degree in philosophy, I have considerable study in theology, with some study in philosophy of religion; and I know the basics of academic research. What I see here is that you are relying on your expertise in philosophy to set up a scheme of your own devising, and one which I might add my own experience with the subject doesn't lead me to support. But at any rate what's missing here is someone else's research which lays out the scheme that you're trying to push on us. If you can come up with an article on metatheory of religion, with sources, and it manages to survive scrutiny, then I can say, "OK, it makes sense to have a category." But the lack of a sourced article is a big problem, not so much because we have to have one, but because a very cursory examination makes me doubt that such an article could be written. I could even make an argument, from a theological point of view, that there is no such thing as metatheory of religion because it cannot be constructed without making religious commitments, and that therefore it is not metatheory. But don't let that stop you from writing an article. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Greg Bard posted this comment "If that category is deleted, I will be replacing it in some form again, for sure. I really would prefer not to have my time and effort wasted, and I would prefer not to be the subject of any further conflict on the matter. The category is part of a greater organizational structure, and it provides a separation between significantly different subject matters based on methodology. I have explained the situation sufficiently, and if you "just don't see" why it is necessary, or believe even with supreme confidence that it is inappropriate, I would suggest that you avoid it, or work around it. I am trying to be forthright and respectful with you, but this proposal is causing serious problems and conflict for no good reason. Please relent." at my talk page. I felt it needed to be aired here. It at a minimum seems to be the type of comment that should be at a CfD and not at an individual users talk page, and is at least borderline attacking of another user.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To expland of my motion to delete. Looking at the articles they are about philosophies, many of which are at least quasi-religious. They are not what the category header claims they should be. This would work as an article, if properly sourced, but I really do not see it working as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a quote from my statement on Greg's userpage and his response "Your threat to create a new category in disregard to a potential CfD decission is unwise. If the community feels that a category is unneeded you should respect that decision, and not try to go around it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a threat. It is a good faith warning. I really feel I have no options here. I am being up front and forthright about it. Perhaps we do need to go to ANI sooner rather than later. I am asking you to relent, and that seems to be all that I have in my power. My reasoned argument does not seem to inform you and the others. Greg Bard (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)" I figure this material is relevant to this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand a persons alarm to have significant work proposed to be deleted for quite briefly justified opposition, and also the urgency of stopping OR. But Google ranking WP instances of "Metatheory of Religion" highly is not that remarkable - a basic search including -wikipedia does return respectable uses of it. It does not appear to be an OR term or even less, in any clear way, an offensive categorisation. Aside from how important this schematic matter may appear here, many prominent works of WP Philosophy are very wanting of intelligent and expert revision and much more likely to seed misunderstanding and OR viewpoints, than the existence of a potentially unsuitable category. Whichever categories may be unsuitable, they should reveal themselves in time by being difficult to keep populated. Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I just want to give some credit where it is due. I have asked repeatedly, for alternative solutions to the problems the deletion of this category would cause. Only Arthur Rubin has offered any. I wouldn't usually classify him as an overly collaborative editor, so I felt the need to acknowledge that. Greg Bard (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Insofar as my communication to JPLambert, I feel I would rather be forthright about the reality of this situation rather than be (or be seen as) secretive in any way. Every field of philosophy has a "theories" category, so we can reasonably expect some form of this same category to come back no matter what the result of this proposal. I don't feel that I should be placed in a position of being considered in violation of some policy, nor the spirit of any policy for that. Greg Bard (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not eliminating the "theories" category, it is changing (or absorbing) the "metatheories" category. It is not true that every field of philosophy has a "metatheories" category. It is certainly not true that every field of philosophy should have a "metatheories" category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever claimed that every field of philosophy has a "metatheories" category, Arthur. Nor has anyone claimed that there should be. So you are off on your own fantasy here. Philosophy of science has a metatheories category, because that is the subject matter of philosophy of science. Te subject matter of science is scientific theories, of which there are many, none of which needs to be classified under philosophy. What does need to be classified under philosophy are the metatheories of science (naturalism, skepticism, etcetera). They are, and that category is working exactly as it should. This category (metatheories of religion) has a very similar function, and is working exactly as intended. Do I need to spell it out? The various theories of religion are not philosophy, but the metatheories about religion are. I'm sorry if this is over people's heads. Greg Bard (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that this is required so that every field of philosophy has a "theories" category. The one here is Category:Theories of religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur, you are failing to understand what I have explained several times. Religion is not philosophy. Philosophy isn't religion. The category "theories of religion" is not under philosophy of religion, and it should not be. However, the articles in the metatheories category DO belong under philosophy of religion (naturalism, skepticism, etcetera). I would think that someone who once claimed that "mathematical logic" isn't logic, just so as to segregate math from philosophy would understand. Greg Bard (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After having done a little more searching I can assure that the rationale for this proposal is very mistaken, the term is not all OR. There are numerous uses of it in quality works. Preliminary google results can easily mislead. Here are just a few of many examples found with refined google queries and with duckduckgo.com for example:[1] , [2] , [3]Lisnabreeny (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we, I hope, get beyond the simple language of 'keep' and 'delete' and perhaps reach a better compromise position which allows everybody to achieve the goals to be sought in this discussion? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable Delete (definite). I have difficulty accepting one of Greg Bard's initial statements very near the top of this page, in which he said: "there are many and varied theories of religion (i.e. Christianity, Buddhism, etcetera)..." Au contraire, religions such as Christianity and Buddhism are not essentially theories. They are most fundamentally systems of practice. They typically address an issue such as salvation, moksha, nirvana, or some other ultimate concerns that an enormous mass of ordinary people is persuaded is important. So it would be more accurate to say that various Christian denominations offer theories of salvation, Hinduism offers theories of moksha, Buddhism offers theories of entering nirvana. If a social scientist comes along and wants to formulate a theory of how various Christian denomination form their theories of salvation, that would be a meta-theory of salvation, NOT a meta-theory of religion. But "religion" as an abstract category is something that most of those traditions have thought about only very recently, if ever ("religion", after all, is a Western category, in its present meanings fairly recent, and religion/science controversies are fueled by its particular nature). So to assert, say, that Hinduism is a theory of religion in precise sense is silly, because "religion" isn't even part of Hinduism's conceptual system ("dharma" is, but not "religion"). There have been lots of keystrokes in this conversation claiming that participants have an inadequate understanding of philosophy. I think we also need to ask whether a few places our discussion may also reflect an inadequate understanding of religion - an inadequate understanding that may be fueling the rush by some to embrace an admittedly original and what seems to me to be a highly intellectualized (read: overintellectualized) category, one that should be subject to all the caveats and caution that justifiably attach to such novel abstract categories. --Presearch (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you don't know what a theory is. Every system is a theory. Any group of two or more sentences is a theory, whereas just one sentence is a concept. That's why Wikipedia is generally organized to differentiate between concepts and theories. Greg Bard (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if every pair of sentences is a theory, then I suppose you would tell us that we could tag every Wikipedia article of more than 2 sentences as a "Category:Wikipedia article that constitutes a theory." I doubt anyone, including you, would claim that such tagging would be useful. Similarly, so far I've read nothing to persuade me that the metatheory category you propose would be useful in ways that would offset the confusion it would generate.
    It strikes me that the more parsimonious category name might be simply "Theories of religion." If "theory" is construed broadly (not just academically), then there could potentially be subcategories such as "Scholarly theories of religion" and "religious theories of religion". A subcategory for "metatheories of religion" could be reserved for WP articles, if any have been written, about theories to explain such matters as why Catholic theology affirms an "ecclesial dimension" to other religions, why Muslim traditions recognize some validity in other traditions "of the book," and why the Vedas and the Perrennial philosophy affirm that many or all religions are valid paths to truth, whereas fundamentalists of many stripes reject the validity of all religions except their own. Are there scholars who have grappled in an explanatory/theoretical way with such issues? Let's not toss around the word "meta" as if we were all going to double our salaries by doing so. Regards -- Presearch (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an article describing such a topic (i.e. two or more sentences) then why on earth would it not be categorized under the Theories category tree? You put it forward as strange somehow. Every article in wikipedia should be found in one or more of the four fundamental categories, so there is nothing strange about it. Merging the theories and the metatheories would portray to the readers that religious belief is the same as a philosophical belief. They are not. To portray it otherwise would be a serious deficiency in the credibility of Wikipedia. Religious beliefs are not restrained by logic, reason, and the scholarly methodology of academic philosophy. Metatheories ARE restrained by logic, reason, and the scholarly methodology of academic philosophy. The difference is a crucial one. This isn't about using ten dollar words, or "doubling salaries." Furthermore, we already have established that this usage is consistent with at least some scholarly work, not OR. Even furthermore, these are theories about religion, not theories that depend on religious belief, so that is also a very crucial distinction which will be lost if this proposal is accepted. I do not find your well intentioned counterproposal of "scholarly theories", etc to be an improvement. Greg Bard (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have refactored my "probable delete" above to read "delete (definite)". Wikipedia is not a laboratory for philosophical game-playing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This "meta-theory" category only adds confusion. We need not feel obliged to shoehorn all existing knowledge into someone's idiosyncratic and abstruse conceptual scheme, regardless of how feverishly and insistently they may exhort us to do so. We benefit readers if we reject such schemes. -- Presearch (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite the lengthy discussion above, this category appears to be a relatively straightforward expansion of our existing categorical structure.   — C M B J   12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the lengthy discussion is that there is, at least, a great deal of dissent as to whether this "straightforward expansion" actually reflects the fields in question. Greg Bard's contention, in creating the category, is that some sort of intellectual symmetry demands it because one has metatheories of other fields; the counterargument is that there isn't any such actual study in any case, and that the concept is generally not even valid except that certain religious positions be adopted, which is why the only use of the term is in sociology and assumes an atheistic viewpoint. The only straightforward way out of this is for someone to come up with sources for metatheory of religion and write the article from them; then nobody would be arguing this; the argument continues because nobody is either willing or able to do so (as I said above, I didn't find any obvious sources), and therefore the discussion is basically centered around Greg's (and now yours) personal opinion about such a field. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very low rhetoric to attempt to portray this as personal opinion. Furthermore, certainly not every category has a main article corresponding to it, and categories do not require the same standard. With all due respect, I think you don't have any education or experience in this subject matter, and I think you should defer to people who do. It is not true that the term is only used within sociology (and if you had any experience beyond Wikipedia content in the subject area you would know that). Greg Bard (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every category has a main article, but this is the sort of category that needs one. If you cannot write an article on the subject that can withstand deletion, then it is fair to say that the category is improper and should not exist. And I say that it appears to be a personal opinion of yours, because you need to argue for it. As far as my education is concerned, I am certainly willing to defer to those who know which sources are good and which are not. But since there are no sources here, that does not apply. If it not true that the term isn't used outside of sociology, then show me! Write the main article! Mangoe (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN, I think it is very low rhetoric to attempt to portray this as personal opinion. I believe that Lisnabreeny did, in fact, find usage consistent with my usage. So you are choosing to ignore that. Greg Bard (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The usages identified by Lisnabreeny are unpersuasive, and some do not even look on target. The mere fact that a society expresses interest in a topic does not mean they've ever succeeded in doing nontrivial scholarship about it. A metatheory of theology is not the same as a metatheory of religion. The reference on pluralism looks the most on target, but one isolated usage does not constitute grounds for the proposed sweeping category (and whether it's fully on-target is potentially debatable).
   But if you have confidence in those references, rather than putting energy into criticizing others' supposed lack of knowledge, see if you can use those references to write an article about this ostensibly valid category. If it can survive deletion, that will be evidence that the category is well-founded viable. It may also produce lessons/insights useful for applying such a category in practice to WP articles. Otherwise, please stop trying to impose this idiosyncratic abstract schema on Wikipedia in what risks being an exercise in original research in your own philosophical worldview. -- Presearch (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References for talk on Category:Metatheory of religion[edit]
  1. ^ [1] The Society is intended, first and foremost, to be an informal network of scholars in the field of religion and theology sharing a similar interest in the broader theoretical issues pertaining to metatheory of theology as discourse in the framework of theory of religion with a view to further cross- and trans-disciplinary study of theology and religion
  2. ^ [2] Today the prefix meta- is often used to signify theoretical work, or work that examines assumptions that operate behind scholarship, as in the difference between developing a theory of religion as opposed to studying theories of religion themselves: meta-theory; see positivism
  3. ^ [3] Pluralism is thus not another historical religion making an exclusive religious claim, but a meta-theory about the relation between the historical religions. Its logical status as a second-order philosophical theory or hypothesis is different in kind from that of a first-order religious creed or gospel
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.

Indian football club categories[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As you can see instead of having SC, FC, or AC at the end of the team names the teams should have S.C. A.C. and F.C. instead. The reason for this is because of how they are named. F.C. means Football Club and adding periods would indicate that the two letters are two different words. Same with S.C. and A.C. as well. If you want examples then look at how the clubs in the Premier League are named. Its a small example but just in case. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all matches the parent articles, and the naming standards used elsewhere. Probably qualifies for speedy, but most are untagged. Category:Pune FC also. --Qetuth (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Pune F.C. was already created so Category:Pune FC can be deleted. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:38, 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.

Category:Textbook writers from Pakistan[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Textbook writers from Pakistan to Category:Pakistani textbook writers.
Nominator's rationale To match with other subcategories under Category:Textbook writers. Mar4d (talk) 09:53, 9 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.

Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1)[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: Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to Special:StablePages which provides more information than this page. Perhaps it would be worthwhile redirecting this page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category is used for administration and sorting in the same idea as Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages is (which itself is also redundant to Special:Protectedpages). In that having a category allows for more granular sorting of issues through sub-cats (not yet in use for PC yet, but being that pending changes was only just implemented and the cat was created days ago, it is not unreasonable to think that at some point in the near future sub-cats would be created to allow for granular sorting of why articles are PC protected as is done in other protection cats) as well as making it easier for administration through category based tools. Best, Mifter (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mifter. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Mifter makes a good point and I withdraw the nomination. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 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.

Political leader 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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per European leaders. 86.40.103.209 (talk) 01:06, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_9&oldid=1138396247"