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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The company was recently renamed. Bbb2007 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the article titled correctly? "S.A." seems like it should be replaced by Orange (telco) or something. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the name is fine. Other company pages and their categories use 'S.A.' to distinguish it from other uses (e.g. Total S.A.). Bbb2007 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match current article on the company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (leaving a redirect) -- S.A. stands for Societe Anonyme (possibly misspelt by me). This is the usual abbreviation for the suffix of a company in a francophone country, the equivalent of Ltd or Plc in UK, inc in USA, Gmbh in Germany etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 10 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:Police officers convicted of murdering fellow cops[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. Merge is not needed since the article is in a better subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcat - there's no need to classify by victim type. Secondly, if for some reason this is kept, it should be renamed to "police officers convicted of murdering police officers" per naming conventions. MSJapan (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete The sole member is already a member of Category:Canadian people convicted of murdering police officers and Category:Canadian police officers convicted of murder, so there's no need for a merge at this point. The name of the category is misleading for him anyway because he didn't kill someone he knew or who was even in the same force; as far as anyone knows he just picked some other cop at random, so the use of "fellow" in his case is questionable. But at any rate unless other members are found this category is too small. Seyasirt (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is way to specific a category. We categorize by conviction and occupation, but there is no reason to categorize by victim too. What next Category:Police officers convicted of raping fellow cops? If kept we should rename to a better name, and avoid use of "fellow" which just seems unprofessional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 8 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:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with other sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think woman is the better way to phrase it. Film directors are almost all adults. However another parent category is Category:Female film directors, which I think is why I named this category thus. That category really needs to be considered for renaming as well. The American women by occupation cat is not a clear precedent setting one, since the issues involved are slightly different. Plus, the use of female/women in its subcats is about half and half, with a few like ;Category:American actresses using female specific titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 5 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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to include Wikipedians as this is a category for Users. Tassedethe (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's cross-namespace, and hasn't had anyone else in it besides the creator since creation. MSJapan (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to assume this is meant to be a wikipedian category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 17 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:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per an editor request, this was relisted here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "Haskalah" is rather obscure and certainly not known to the great majority of readers, who would be much better served by the use of the English-language translation. While it might perhaps be acceptable to retain that name for the main article -- I don't have a firm opinion on that question -- it is most assuredly NOT appropriate for the name of a category, as categories are not accompanied by explanatory text and thus require the use of terms that are clear and easily understood, to the greatest extent possible. Since we DO have an exact equivalent in English, this should be an easy decision. I further note that the Commons Category also uses the term "Jewish Enlightenment". Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Wikipedia article is at Haskalah. If you think the article should be at something else, get the article renamed, and then try to rename the eponymous category. We generally follow article names, and I see no reason to not do so here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While that is indeed the general practice, it's NOT an absolute requirement, and there are occasional exceptions. As I said, I am not dead set against leaving the article at its current name. But the only reason that would even be possible is because we do have a redirect from Jewish Enlightenment, which now has a full complement of categories (that I added) to ensure that readers who aren't familiar with the term "Haskalah" will nonetheless find the article properly listed in those categories. But categories don't have the full equivalent in tems of redirects, so they are always required to have names that are clearly understood by all readers. There's no guarantee that the article would even be renamed if I made such a proposal. But that would not relieve us of the obligation to rename this category, so it seems to me that we should proceed with renaming, regardless of whether the article is ever renamed. Cgingold (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have various articles with Hebrew/Yiddish terms as their titles. This is often appropriate, but there should be redirects (at article level) for such search terms as the target here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, Peter -- you've completely reversed things. We're NOT talking about the name of the article -- we're talking about the proper name for the category. As I pointed out above, articles can have redirects -- but categories do not have redirects. And THAT is precisely why the category name needs to use plain English. Please have another go at this and reconsider what you wrote. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, categories can be redirects. Plus, the general rule is to in almost all cases match article and category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, JPL -- I should have said "true redirects". The thing is, there's a crucial difference between category redirects and those for articles. The wonderful thing about article redirects is that -- unlike category redirects -- they can have their own categories -- and those categories show up in other categories, just like those for the actual articles. Which is precisely why it would not be a real problem to leave the article at its current name: the great majority of readers who are unfamiliar with the term "Haskalah" will nonetheless see that there is, in fact, an article about the Jewish Enlightenment. But the only category name they will see is that for Category:Haskalah, which of course means nothing to most people. And THAT is why the category name needs to be changed to the English equivalent, regardless of how the article is named. Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 15 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:Founders and heads of educational institutions[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:Split. After the split, the issue of educational vs. academic can be addressed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split. Each sub-category is either for founders or heads. If any of the member pages were both then they can be re-categorised in both. – FayenaticLondon 08:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal makes sense. However, to accomplish the objective, it seems to me that the existing category Category:Founders of academic institutions should be renamed to Category:Founders of educational institutions, since the distinction between "academic" and "educational" is subtle (and "educational" avoids the need to make the subjective judgments that may be involved in the word "academic"). Also, work is needed to recategorize the pages currently slotted in the top level of the category as either "founders" or "heads" (or both). --Orlady (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. I also thing we should rename "academic" to "educational", but we can do that by merging after a split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of these people founded schools (for example, schools for young children) that would not be considered "academic", but are clearly "educational". --Orlady (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually I think we should use educational. It is a slightly broader term, although I am not sure there are clear rules on what is academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 14 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. In music the spelling Meter is used everywhere accross Wikipedia, so it is odd that Metre is used for the category. Meter does already exist with a soft redirect. My proposal is to swap that. LazyStarryNights (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Occuli. Metre French and British English and meter (US English) is a measure of length = 100 cm. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose use Category:Meter (music) instead, both meter and metre are something else, especially metre being a metric measurement and meter being a measuring device. Music is clearly not the primary topic of either spelling, and should have never used either category name. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this strong oppose, is the same as Support of counter-proposal by User:OculiLazyStarryNights (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Metre (music). Metre as a term in music is a direct derivative of Metre in poetry, which article is at Metre (poetry). There is no need to fiddle with the orthography under the usual ENGVAR rules. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is called meter (music) not "metre (music)", your suggestion fiddles with ENGVAR also (depending of if categories are named after the ENGVAR of the article or not...) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote and no-one has voted. Various editors have contributed their thoughts to the discussion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I guess instead of "I count 5 votes...", I should have phrased "I count 5 (now 6) users who seem to support...". No evil intended :). I prefer arguments over democracy anyway. If needed we can further discuss the Category:Metre (music) alternative. LazyStarryNights (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I see that conversely Metre (music) was the original name of that article and it was moved without discussion to Meter (music) in January 2007. In other words the whole thing is a mess that I happily blame on Noah Webster's misguided attempts to reform spelling. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes Noah Webster can be "blamed" for being indirectly responsible for our discussion :). Anyways, good spot of the Metre (music) move, I should have checked that myself. I do have a possibly relevant observation though: Unlike the changes at Metre (poetry) in 2011, the changes at Meter (music) in 2007 come with a potentially valid rationale: moved Metre (music) to Meter (music): Chiefly British variation obseolete also among the British professional musicians.. I cannot verify the statement since I do not hang around with British professional musicians, but if it is true it may have been the right change.
Some support, though admittedly not that strong:
Google "duple metre" -wikipedia filter on country 'GB' shows 125 results.
Google "duple meter" -wikipedia filter on country 'GB' shows 192 results.
A different thing I thought up. I wonder whether WP:ENGVAR is clear enough about Category pages. Maybe it could be improved. It does discuss the retaining existing variety for articles, but it is unclear whether it is also intended for categories. Should a category be (a) retain its existing variety, (b) be in line with the variety of its main article, (c) in line with the majority of (the names of) its articles, (d) other? LazyStarryNights (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions, LazyStarryNights. These issues have been addressed from time to time here at CFD, but I'm afraid I'm a little fuzzy as to how they've been resolved. (I've been less active here than formerly.) You might want to repost this set of questions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, since it's a broader issue than just this narrow CFD discussion. Cgingold (talk) 14:09, 11 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:Merge and cleanup. Consensus is that a cleanup is needed. I'll let the experts sort this out. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am unable to discern a clear rationale for this category. Although it is only sparsely populated, it nevertheless appears to span a huge amount of territory, and seems completely redundant to the already-existing category structure. I was hoping that its creator could enlighten us and provide a persuasive rationale, but he/she ceased editing on Wiki over 2 years ago. Cgingold (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Therapy. The scope of this category appears to be redundant with other existing categories, particularly Category:Therapy. (I noticed that the category identifies Therapeutics as the main article in the category, but that page is a redirect to Therapy, which is the main article in Category:Therapy.) Some of the contents in this category do not appear to also be in Category:Therapy, so merger is more appropriate than deletion. --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Orlady. This may or may not be correct in the real world, but this is what is indicated by the articles and categories present in WP. Hmains (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merging to Category:Therapy definitely would NOT be appropriate. Please look at the sub-cats and especially the individual articles and I am quite sure you will agree. Frankly, the contents of this category are a real mess of pottage. Cgingold (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was operating on the premise that the subcategory Category:Clinical pharmacology and possibly also Category:Pharmacology belong under "Therapy". I hadn't paid much attention to the handful of pages in the main category. You aren't lying when you point that several of them clearly don't belong under Therapy! There is nothing preventing them from being moved into categories more appropriate for pages on topics like alternative medicine and government pharmaceutical regulation. After the obvious misfits are removed, it may be much easier to figure out what to do with the category; note that CFD does not provide assistance with recategorizing misplaced pages. --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at all of the articles, and they're not lacking in categories. The subcats are also fine in that regard. The user who created this category didn't appear to have any clear rationale for what he stuck into it. It seems to me the simplest thing to do is to just delete it and be done with it. :) Cgingold (talk) 05:34, 5 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:American members of Reformed Christian churches[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.
Oppose: One could be a member of such a denomination without necessarily identifying with its official theology. If this category is useful, it is for making a weaker claim than "so and so is a Calvinist." For instance, a notable politician, not known for his theological views, may be a member of a Reformed church but not necessarily a self-identified Calvinist. (Barack Obama would have fallen into this category before he jettisoned Rev. Wright and distanced himself from church in general.) I'm fine with a renaming, however. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that being a member of a Reformed church is enough of a public identification with the religious tradition (not necessarily the official theology, but we shouldn't be categorizing on beliefs anyway) to make one a Reformed Christian, just as joining a Catholic church makes one a Catholic. If there are cases where someone should not be categorized as a Reformed Christian who are members of a Reformed church, I don't really think that's a WP:DEFINING characteristic. --JFH (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—membership of a Reformed church <> Calvinism. My brother and his family currently attend a Presbyterian church because there is a better provision for youth at that church, but he is by no means a Calvinist and is not likely to remain there when either the minister moves on or the boys grow out of the youth group. The comment that we shouldn't be categorising on beliefs is odd, given the whole theological position tree is based on belief. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that there are members of Reformed churches who are not Calvinists (by not cating by belief, I'm just saying these religious cats are for members of a religious tradition, not holders of a belief set, but I can see that there are members of Reformed churches that do not see themselves as members of the tradition). But is church membership a defining characteristic if one doesn't even want to identify with the religious tradition? Furthermore, for now this cat is a subcat of Category:Reformed Christians, so we are assuming that all of these people are Reformed anyway. --JFH (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if merged to Calvanist and reformed Christians cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The parent category has been renamed to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed Christians. Because most of the above comments were made prior to that renaming, it is not clear what the commenters would say now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Orlady (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:American Calvinist and Reformed Christians by denomination for now, until the category tree is cleaned up a bit more. Though it seems odd at first glance, JFH is correct that we do not categorize by belief. The fact is that we can neither verify another person's true religious beliefs nor vet them against a religion's theological principles; thus, we are left to rely on their self-identification. For example, a person who does not believe that Jesus really existed but still considers himself to be a Christian would be placed in a category for Christians. It is not our place to evaluate the accuracy of a person's self-identification and, in any case, religious principles too often are inconsistent (both between and within denominations) to allow us to evaluate whether a person's beliefs match them. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:03, 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 to merge. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about the film genre prison film ? A film set in prison is clearly not necessarily a "prison film". "women in prison" is another film genre -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say more about the distinction you see? Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Films set in prisons do not necessarily involve active prisons, as several horror films are set in disused prisons and are not about prison life at all. Prison film is a specific genre, and can be set in penal colonies instead of prisons, so they do not necessarily happen in prisons either. Women in prison films are a type of sexploitation film. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both not defining and suffers from the same sins as all "films about..." categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what reliable source says it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons offered by 76.65.128.222 .Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Prison films and purge anything that is not a prison film. These overlap too much to be worth separating. Also, I am unconvinced horror films set in abandoned prisons belong in either category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. According to the category descriptions, Category:Films set in prison (films by setting) contains "films whose story, action, and/or other environment takes place at least partly in prison" and Category:Prison films (films by genre) contains "films whose narrative elements primarily are constructed from prison elements". Thus, although the contents of the two categories will overlap significantly, their scope is different. I think that the solution is simply to eliminate the hierarchical relationship between these categories. Category:Films set in prison is a subcategory of Category:Films by setting and Category:Prison films is a subcategory of Category:Films by genre. The two categories should be linked by a see also notice, but one should not be a parent of the other. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:48, 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.
