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. Cleanup is obviously recommended.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These are not articles on various languages' toponymy- they are a collection of articles on places in the country, region, state, province, etc. where the languages are spoken, and a slew of disambiguation pages. As discussed previously with Norwegian toponyms (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_13#Category:Norwegian_toponyms, there are schemes for categorizing places by where they are located, and even for articles on place name etymologies (such as the first article in the Austro-Bavarian category, and others of like flavor, (see Category:Etymologies of geographic names). As explained on the first nom (Norwegian toponyms), numerous other cats to follow. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a non-standard way to categorize things that we should avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aehm - non-standard? Look at Category:Slavic toponyms if there are so many categories like that, it is a standard. ChemTerm (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Geography and WikiProject Linguistics have been notified. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reasons too vague of why they should be deleted. Toponymy is one topic of language science (Linguistics), so why not categorize by language. But maybe rename to "Danish-language toponyms" etc, and use them as language categories. ChemTerm (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Toponymy is a topic of linguistics, unfortunately the vast majority of the articles here are about cities, towns, or (ahem) disambiguation pages! We have a schema for naming of geographic places (toponymy), which in WP parlance is "Etymologies of geographic names"; see the category I cite above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To some extent these lead to false categorization as well. For example in Category:Slovak toponyms we get Banka, yet the first meaning of Banka is a palce in India which has no Slovak meaning. Another reason to delete these categories is they border on categorizing things by similar name, which we do not do. We categorize things by the characteristic of what they are, not by what their name is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question. First of all Category:Scottish toponyms is not an attempt to categorise by language but by geography. There is a Scots language, but that is (by and large) not the point of the category. We also have Category:Scottish toponymy. I don't really care what we call it but there has to be a strong case for a categorisation of the items these cats contain. Should then part of the proposal be to move them to Category:Etymologies of Scottish geographic names? BenMacDui 17:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to get clear about this specific. I think that upper level cat Category:Scottish toponymy is by and large fine. If the big picture result here is "Keep" then no change is required, but if it is other than that then Category:Scottish toponyms should be Moved to Category:Etymologies of Scottish geographic names or similar. I don't have the time/patience to start looking through the dozens of of other categories, but I can't support a "delete all" outcome. BenMacDui 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By some convoluted logic Category:Celtic toponyms is the super-cat for Irish, Welsh and Scottish toponymy as well as Irish, Welsh, Scottish etc. toponyms. This should be renamed to Category:Celtic toponymy and cleaned out (or deleted and a new cat created of this name). Category:Breton toponyms is a dead duck and contains only one redirect. (It was created by a likely sockpuppet of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg per the below comment by Michael Bednarek.) Happy to assist in the above Celtic clean up if need be but I don't want to start until it's clear what the general outcome is. BenMacDui 21:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clean out all the disambiguations of place names, and and geography articles. These categories should remain to house articles such as Catalan exonyms or -eşti (placename element) or Welsh toponymy. After that is done, we can start to look at smallcat-related upmerging. The place names should, if relevant, be in a list. --Qetuth (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - it is obvious that a lot of crud has been added to these categories, but it is also perfectly clear that there is some valid content. I think it was a error of the nominator to propose "deletion", when a "rename" and/or "merge" proposal might have had a greater chance of success (note the dual existence of Category:Welsh toponyms and Category:Welsh toponymy etc.)--Mais oui! (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like if cleaned up the Welsh category would only have three articles, and I am not sure other categories would even have that many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - probably delete aqll and start again -- The problem is that these are not being used for articles on the meaning and origin of names, but for dab-pages that using a placename, but used as a surname or in countries other than their ethnic origin. This is a trivial correlation, of a kind discouraged in the category structure. The alternative is to keep but heavily purge removing all pages that do not provide an explanation of the origin and meaning fo the name, with a WP:RS. That is purposely a high hurdle. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 30 November 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:no consensus. The argument that Reformed Christianity is anything but Calvinism in doctrine is suspect, but there are at least a couple things in here which predate or don't descend from Calvinism, so I'll leave it for now.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Category:Calvinism, Reformed is synonymous with of Calvinism, so Reformed Christians is synonymous with Calvinists, which already exists as a category. JFHutson (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, what a mess! As someone who is a "Reformed Christian", I was rather shocked to find that my church is totally absent from this category tree (I have since added a couple). I think that the problem here, and with an awful lot of Christianity (and wider religion-based) cats, is that an awful lot of categories (and articles) have been created, edited and populated by people with a very sketchy knowledge and a confused, odd, and often POV, attitude towards the topic in question. As an example (one hardly knows whether to laugh or cry), I note that Reformed Christianity is, since 2 days ago a redirect to Calvinism. I think I need to lie down after this discovery, and that is really only the tip of an horrific iceberg. Wikipedia never ceases to astound me. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As far as I'm aware, "Reformed" is used exclusively to refer to Calvinists, in spite of the fact that Anglicans, Lutherans, and radical/Anabaptist Christians all belong to some reformation movement. One thing is for sure is that Wikipedia isn't served by having two conflicting names for the same thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I oppose all of Hutson's efforts to equate Reformed Christianity and Calvinism. While all reformed churches are Calvinist, not all Calvinist churches are "Reformed" pbp 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the current category name is probably wrong. If we can justify a category for the general reformed Christians, it would need to be by something more than a shared name. Is that the case here and is it possible? Otherwise, the name is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand... Can you give an example of a Calvinist church which isn't Reformed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vegas, if there is some broader "general Reformed tradition" that includes Reformed Christians who are not Calvinists, we have a much larger problem than this category. We have Portal:Calvinism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism which include everything from Barth to Beza to Reformed Baptists, and we have a large number of articles (including Calvinism) using the terms synonymously because that's how they are commonly used. --JFHutson (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from a dictionary, Reformed - of or relating to the body of Protestant Christianity arising during the Reformation; used of some Protestant churches especially Calvinist as distinct from Lutheran; "Dutch Reformed theology". This clearly states that Calvinism may not be the only church that uses reformed making the name slightly ambiguous. I think the discussion below is raising multiple issues with the tree in this area. The upmerge was suggested as a way to address any needed cleanup and to remove a category that is likely ambiguous. In reading this discussion, it is not clear to me what the best solution is at this time. This could require a two part discussion. Maybe agreeing on some cleanup as the first step, and then renomination to decide after that cleanup if any additional action is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calvinism is not a church, and no church I know of uses "Calvinist" in the name, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you're suggesting that the Dutch Reformed Church would not have self-identified as Calvinist, I don't know what to say. I can't find a good resource to point you to, but I'm pretty sure they would. --JFHutson (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the Waldensians may be a reformed Church that may or may not be Calvinistic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the Waldensians comment, think of this as a continuum with Catholicism at one end and Calvinism at the other. You've got Lutheranism and Methodism/Wesleyism in the middle. You've got Anglicanism between Catholicism and Methodism. You've got Waldensianism between Methodism and Calvinism pbp 00:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Waldensians predate Calvin, but today they sympathize with Calvinistic doctrine, see Waldensians#Characteristics of the modern Waldensian Church. I don't know anything about Calvinistic Methodists, but I also don't know what this has to do with the proposal. When you say Waldensians are Reformed but not Calvinistic, what do you mean by Reformed what do you mean by Calvinistic? --JFHutson (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The terms are commonly used synonymously, and when they're not they're used in different ways by different people, which is why the Calvinism page has Reformed faith as a synonym in the lead, and has for some time. Sometimes people mean something more precise by Calvinist (like double-predestination), and sometimes Reformed means something more precise (as in continental Reformed as opposed to Presbyterian), but common usage is Reformed = Calvinist, and trying to evaluate everyone in the tradition as Reformed and/or Calvinist is just not going to happen with any degree of accuracy. --JFHutson (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the proposer is clearly pushing a POV, and the clearly OR statement "Reformed Christians is synonymous with Calvinists" would require an awful lot of verification which is just not supplied. WP:VERIFY is official policy for a reason. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some cites to Category:Calvinism and Calvinism. I really don't know what alternate definition would be more neutral for each term, since as I've mentioned these terms are used in so many conflicting ways. As for pushing a POV, the usage at Calvinism is pretty much as I found it, and I did not write "Reformed is synonymous with of Calvinism" at Category:Calvinism, it was inserted in 2009. I would actually prefer "Reformed tradition" as the title for the Calvinism article and "Reformed Christians" for the cat, but I didn't think I'd get support for that because "Calvinism" is so common (there's a Portal:Calvinism). --JFHutson (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I regard "Reformed" as a synonym for "Protestant". It is perhaps a stream that originated from Calvin, rather than directly Luther. Calvinism is a theological position. It is not necessarily the case that all churches from the Reformed tradition hold strictly to the views of Calvin on this subject, any more than all Methodist (Wesleyans) hold strictly to the view of John Wesley. Life is too complicated for it to be possible to make such simple equations. Reinstate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Reformed = Protestant, that's another reason to delete this category, as there is already a Protestant cat. I'm not suggesting either that those in the cat need to strictly follow Calvin, only that they be in the tradition which is commonly referred to as Calvinist or Reformed. If you think Calvinism is a theological position (I'm assuming you mean unconditional election and/or double predestination), you should read Calvinism, where it is defined much more broadly and has been for years, while recognizing the colloquial usage you mention. Just because those are well-known distinctives of the tradition does not mean one equals the other or that everyone in the tradition agrees with them. --JFHutson (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some digging and found that this discussion has been had before a few times. Here is a starting place which links to some discussions where it was decided Calvinism = Reformed for WP purposes. --JFHutson (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: there is no such thing as a definition "decided... for WP purposes". Wikipedia is based on reliable external sources. In other words: we cannot just make things up here, within Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was poorly worded. By for Wikipedia purposes, I mean common usage in reliable sources, which is what the discussions mention. It is common in reliable sources in the field to use the terms interchangeably, despite several different colloquial usages. --JFHutson (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We do not want to delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 1 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:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:25, 29 November 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. No prejudice against a nomination of all the similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Like the main articles, e.g. Media of Afghanistan, Media of Angola. Avoid ambiguity for French media and German media, where it could refer to the language. ChemTerm (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support removes ambiguity as to whether this is media of the country, or of expatriate communities elsewhere, or of ethnic media for Albanians, or of "American" meaning not the USA, but all the Americas. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose attempt to turn a nationality-based system into a country-based one. Cultural topics are, by their very nature, best dealt with in terms of their national context. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mass media -> and then next level Category:Mass media by location. A country is a location. Thus "Category:Media by country" is a location based category and not nationality based. SEPARATE these trees ASAP. The main articles are country based. See many of the items in the category which are country based. Clean now. Wikimedia Commons does not have these issues. ChemTerm (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These five categories are not special or unique cases — you need to either propose a mass renaming of all the subcategories in Category:Media by country or leave them alone, because these five are not subject to different naming considerations than the rest of them are. Oppose as constituted, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'd oppose a more comprehensive nomination. Also, incidentally, I note that you've spent part of today splitting media-by-nationality and media-by-country into separate trees consistent with this nomination, even while this discussion is still open — you need to let the CFD process run its course, and are not permitted to jump the gun in advance of the consensus being established. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the reason given are sound. The "nominate the whole tree" demand just does not make sense. That takes way too much time and effort, so begining with this section makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user's process so far has been to nominate a small handful of categories as if they were isolated cases that were somehow subject to different concerns than all of the others, and then to arbitrarily create the new categories without waiting for CFD consensus in a few other cases — which he would then use to selectively recategorize a random portion of the existing category's content so that "Nationality media" and "Media of country" were no longer functioning as one category whose name was under debate, but as two separate categories serving distinct purposes — and to simply ignore the majority of sibling categories that are actually subject to the same concerns as the ones he's been choosing to single out for special treatment. He hasn't been asking for "test cases" in pursuit of a comprehensive change to a tree's naming convention — he's been singling out random "special cases" to be renamed in isolation from other sibling categories.
That it takes "time and effort" to put together a comprehensive batch nomination is not an excuse for lazy half measures or for arbitrarily doing an end run around Wikipedia process. For one thing, even if there is a consensus established to apply this discussion as a precedent for renaming the rest of the tree, then this discussion will have opened and closed without most of the affected categories ever having been tagged as being under consideration — meaning that the renaming would sneak in under most people's radar, since they never had any opportunity to learn that this discussion was happening in the first place or any opportunity to comment on it. It takes "time and effort" to have to restage the same discussion over and over again on five or ten or twenty individual batches of five, too. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per naming convention at Wikipedia:Category_names. If you want to change the guideline, start a discussion there. If you want these five to be exceptions, explain why. --Qetuth (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename"...media..." to "...news media..." - the word "media" (or even "mass media") is too vague without a qualifying adjective. - jc37 08:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - This would change the scope of the articles/categories in question considerably, and leave a large collection of 'media' related topics with no good place to go. Generally, Fooian media includes newspapers, magazines, television and radio (which can include news but also other things) plus also internet, cinema, photography, etc. --Qetuth (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is another way to illustrate the problem. Too many types of disparate things under one term. The term "media", without any qualifying word, could technically include every way to present information and to store information, as well as being the media presented or stored. (And this without getting into things like a group of journalists could be called "the media", and so on.) - jc37 10:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the problem - 'Society' could mean even more, and a wider range, of ideas, and yet we still have Category:American society. Large trees have to have a parent somewhere, and abolishing these just because they are too broad would leave many nation/country categories unworkably large. Category:American media, which I think is the largest, has 41 appropriate sub-categories, but its parent American Society has 59 and United States has 24 many of which are incredibly broad. Maybe a news media subcategory could help subdivide a large media category, but I wouldn't want anything to be taken out of media back into its parents. --Qetuth (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The use of demonyms is perfectly acceptable. Moving away from this, raises the question of whehter the proposition should be "of" or "in". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Procedural oppose per Bearcat. If the rationale is sound, then it should be applied to all such categories rather than to a subset; no rationale is given for applying it only to some such categories, which would break a consistent naming pattern. Whatever the intent behind this sort of selective nomination, its effect is (as Bearcat noted) to sneak hundreds of changes in under most people's radar. The nominator has done a lot of this recently, and it is disruptive of consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 7 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. No prejudice against a larger nomination of all the similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. 90% of the subcategories use "of/in" Afghanistan. These are clear "by country"-categories. ChemTerm (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—These categories are not about an organisation called Society of Foo. They are about Fooian society. It is irrelevant that the subcategories use the "of" or "in" format. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly by country instead of also including expatriate community societies. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose attempt to turn a nationality-based system into a country-based one. Cultural topics are, by their very nature, best dealt with in terms of their national context. (Incidentally, is the proposer meaning to nominate the entire category tree? Why did they stop at the letter 'A'? I thought that CFD rules meant that every single cat affected by the proposal has to be templated and listed?)--Mais oui! (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Lot of work to tag all and then see nonsense answers stop the process. CAN YOU READ "Society by country" ... and then see all the subcategories that have the country name in it. Nationality and Country is VERY messy in WP. It seems random and both trees are mixed with each other. Even main articles are called Something in Foo and the category uses Fooian Something. Clean it! ChemTerm (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to try to change the applicable naming conventions before trying to implement a change. The naming conventions will almost always take precedence over personal preference, because they represent the work and consensus of multiple editors over time. I agree though with User:Mais oui! that any categories that are not tagged with the template cannot be renamed, so it makes no sense to discuss these in the absence of the dozens of others. Tagging the categories serves to notify users who watch particular categories that the category they care about is under discussion, so it's not fair to users to discuss categories if they are not tagged and listed here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The procedure for creating a CfD states "each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page". I've noticed the 'Too much work' argument is more common around here than requests for tagging help. And I may be relatively new at CfD, but it appears to me that most of the nation/country mess could be solved if we used the systems in place (eg, either use the naming conventions or start a single parent argument to change them) instead of constantly chipping away in different directions. --Qetuth (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – per the format of Category:Society by nationality, any incremental change can be speedily undone. The best strategy is to set out a persuasive argument; describing opposition as "nonsense answers" is unpersuasive. Oculi (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. These categories are meant to be limited to things happening in the country, the current names are too ambiguous on that matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. The relevant category is Category:Society by nationality. This is a nationality category and natinalities are fooian. See applicable naming conventions. Interested parties should become familiar with the WP category system and not try to change things based on whatever thought they just have. Hmains (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per siblings, per current naming guidelines, per that society is a nationality not country based idea, and per incomplete nomination. --Qetuth (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current names are appropriate.Shyamsunder (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The use of demonyms is perfectly acceptable. Moving away from this, raises the question of whehter the proposition should be "of" or "in". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think... As has probably already been mentioned above, to me "Society of X" in this context suggests something like a pro-X organization rather than a place's society. CsDix (talk) 18:28, 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.
