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 merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's like totally no overlap between these two wikiprojects. Also, language is not languages. — Lfdder (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't properly understand the division into two projects, but if typologists and language experts on the one and syntax theorists, phoneticians etc. on the other hand need to projects, fine. However, you cannot really draw such a dividing line for all those tiny templates. So I'd support a merger. Maybe the linguistics templates could be merged INTO the language templates, without requiring the double name "language and linguistics". But anyway, merge, under that name or another! G Purevdorj (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and some questions: The Category:Linguistics templates is a sub-category of Category:Language templates, so this proposal is an UPmerge followed by a rename. Q1: If the rename goes ahead, will the other sub-categories of Category:Language templates remain appropriate of the proposed name? Q2: How are the templates in the linguistics sub-category being used? i.e. is there practical reason for keeping these particular templates in a separate category? Q3: Have the relevant projects been informed of this discussion? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) 'Linguistics' is an addition, so why wouldn't they? 2) Not as far as I can tell. 3) Yes. — Lfdder (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Linguistics is about the study of the nature of language and the relationships between languages. They are not quite the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything we ought to take away from this comment? — Lfdder (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Linguistics is the study of language—its forms, structures, and meanings. Although the proposed title would not be inaccurate, I see no advantage of eliminating the distinction. A template such as {{Grammatical cases}} clearly is a linguistics template, whereas one such as {{Languages of Alaska}} is not. Just as we have separate categories for Category:Linguistics and Category:Language, we should retain separate categories for their templates. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is {{Languages of Alaska}} not a linguistics template? Language classification is part of linguistics. — Lfdder (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2013 (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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Has only 1 article. Surely Theologians is a more accurate description? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose. The contrary is true. Theologian is as specific as "scientist". There are already existing categories for other more specific branches of theological studies, e.g., there are categories for liturgiologists, canonical theologians and systematic theologians. This is a category which will grow, as this is an established specialty in Christian theology, as one might imagine. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is legitimate to have "Christology", but I do not think that we need categories for specific types of theologian. Christianity is inevitably focused on Christ. We have one article on a man whose work is mostly about Christ, but not exclusively so. He already has "Australian Romans Catholic Theologians" as a category, and that is ample. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing my point that there are already such categories. Are you suggesting that they should be deleted? Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well defined theological field, that is considered a sub-field of Christian theology, not the same as it. This category has a clear definition, and dividing theologians by their specialty makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (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.
DeleteCategory:Democide perpetrators. Looking at the article Democide it seems to essentially be advancing the views and theories of one man, R. J. Rummel. While his views may be important enough to lead to an article, I do not think they are definitive enough to drive our categorization schema. This seems really to be classifying by a neologism that lacks a precise enough definition to use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and "perpetrators" is NPOV. Are we doomed to have a slew of "perpetrators" to supplement every calamity, scandal, crime, or something we just don't like: Category:Inflation perpetrators? for anyone who pays a higher price for something, making the inflation rate rise? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - I am inclined to agree with the nominator that the term has not gained wide enough acceptance to serve as a Wikipedia category. (In fact, the work of its primary promoter, R. J. Rummel, is highly controversial -- to put it mildly -- as I discovered from reading large chunks of the talk page for his article.) At the same time, it seems to me that the category serves a useful function as an umbrella for its sub-categories. Notwithstanding the bit of reductio ad absurdum from the preceding editor, we do in fact have a goodly number of perfectly valid categories for perpetrators of various large-scale mass murders -- viz. Category:Genocide perpetrators, Category:Holocaust perpetrators, etc. I'm wondering if we might rename this to something along the lines ofCategory:Perpetrators of politically-motivated mass murder, rather than simply deleting it. (Feel free to improve on the wording... ) Cgingold (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Democide is a neologism invented by Rummell. It is legitimate to have an article on his views, but I do not think we need this category to go with it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment we also have a category for Category:Democides - so that should be considered as well. I'd suggest just merging up to that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems like a obvious and reasonable way to organize the perpetrators/organizers of this particular type of criminal activity. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring that we avoid the use of neologisms, especially when the term is currently connected almost completely with the work of one person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that it would be wrong to get diverted into the merits or otherwise of Rummel's own work. The quality of his scholarly efforts is not directly relevant to the suitability of the word "democide" as a category title. It seems to me that there are the relevant tests here, all of which should be met if we want to keep the category: a) is the term in broad use, b) does have a stable and objective meaning, c) does it make a viable category which assists in navigation without being arbitrary, trivial etc. On the evidence I see so far, this one fails at the first hurdle. AFAICS, it has gained currency only in a circle around Rummel; Merriam-Webster lists it under new words and slang. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Carlossuarez. MSJapan (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2013 (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 merge as duplicates; as noted, sole article has been deleted so there is nothing to merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 12:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only page that was in the category has been deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:11, 20 August 2013 (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:Philippine Census footnote punctuation problems[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a problem tracking category for which all instances have been corrected. P 1 9 9✉ 14:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 12:24, 20 August 2013 (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:Philippine Census using left alignment[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a problem tracking category for which all instances have been corrected. P 1 9 9✉ 14:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 12:24, 20 August 2013 (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.
