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. delldot∇. 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We shouldn't categorize WP articles according the linguistic qualities of their names. Something for wiktionary, where "articles" are actually words. Mayumashu (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are supposed to categorize things by what they are, not what they are named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Such nominations are totally out of line of the purpose of categories which is to provide navigation to articles. This category has 752 articles; it is part of a well established category structure found in its parent Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin which apparently is not being read or just being ignored. Hmains (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a dictionary and articles were about words or phrases, of course. (I don't at all intend not to do follow-up nominations of the subcats of the parent category - consider this a test nomination of sorts.) Mayumashu (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge -- English is a hybrid language with words from Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and French, with some (particularly in science and theology) from Greek; also loan words form otehr languages. Some of the artilces explain the derivation of the word. This is more of a dictionary fucntion, but still appropriate to an encyclopaedia. For others, it would be necessary to go to a disctionary to justify inclusion. The etymology of butter is discussed in its article; it is said to come from Greek via German, but it seems to me more probable that both derive from a proto Indo-European word, so that its inclusion is qustionable. comet is listed, but the article says nothing on the orign of the word. If we are to keep this, it should be a requirement that the word should have entered English direct from Greek, or nearly direct from a Greek word having become a laon word in Latin (or anotehr language) AND that the articlke discusses the origin of the word. One of my bete noires is bastard words invented by academics using two root words, but from different languages. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Butter article currently contains a section about the etymology of the English word butter, but that's no reason why an encylopedia article about a dairy product should be in Category:Linguistics. DexDor (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we categorize articles not titles (see WP:OCAT) these are articles on various things that have some Greek association in their titles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most (I estimate well over 99%) of the articles in this (and similar) categories are about things, not words. Wiktionary (which is the correct place to categorize words) does it much better with several categories for Greek loanwords and about 10 times as many articles. See also the previous CFD on this. DexDor (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Listifying in WP is unnecessary as Wiktionary already has a much more comprehensive (and I suspect accurate) list (and WP articles like Loanword include some examples). DexDor (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By policy Wikipedia articles are about things, not about the names by which those things are known. An article should not be categorized based on the linguistic origin of its name.--Srleffler (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a firm and great believer in categories, but they must be appropriate, defining, and verifiable. In a dictionary this category would be appropriate, but why should an encyclopedia link butter with acrobat with diadem? If the article doesn't mention it's a greek loanword it can't be defining or verifiable. OTOH List of Greek words with English derivatives is an excellent article and it is encyclopedic. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Greek words and phrases. Unlike the commenters above, I don't see anything wrong with categorising words - Category:Words and phrases by language is a long-established category structure. But I do think there's something a bit odd about separating out 'loanwords', when it's often hard to say whether a particular word has passed into other languages or not. I think we only need a higher category for 'Greek words', not for 'Greek words used in other languages'. Robofish (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an even less appropriate categorization. The topics of these articles are not, in general, Greek words. Articles on English Wikipedia have titles that are in English, not Greek. (Beyond the fact that the topics of the articles are not English words either, but rather things that happen to have English names that were taken from Greek.)--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because the word has a Greek origin does not mean it is in fact Greek. Are card or clerk Greek words?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 24 January 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:Members of Today's Article for Improvement[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:speedy deleted by RHaworth. delldot∇. 19:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of "Category:Today's article for improvement participants". Another Believer(Talk) 22:31, 15 January 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. delldot∇. 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Only need to mention that its a stub category once. Rename to align with similar categories. Dawynn (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename C2C --Qetuth (talk) 11:33, 16 January 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:keep. delldot∇. 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation unnecessary, as all articles entitled The Omen relate to the film series, including the first film which is at article space The Omen. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category's parent article is most accurately The Omen (film series). The article for The Omen makes clear that it was the first in the series. Alansohn (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename per Alansohn. The category is about the film series, not just the original film. The article about the film series is The Omen (film series); the article about the first film is The Omen. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's not about the first film only. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 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.
Comment Part of why the main article became a dab is because someone requested it be made so and there wasn't much objection. (I considered objecting, but didn't know enough to do so) There's some cause to debate whether it should stay a dab or not. However Category:Jazz albums by Brazilian artists and Category:Bossa nova albums may indeed be sufficient.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge perhaps to Category:Jazz albums by Brazilian artists will be better than plain deleting. I assume there is not musical genre of "Brazilian Jazz" that is much differnet from that of other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 15 January 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: There's no need to diffuse either parents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:06, 15 January 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.
Rename toCategory:Catholic acts of reparation, also the main article. I think a secular use for the term could probably be identified, in terms of reparation payments after war. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Acts of reparation or perhaps Category:Acts of reparation (Catholicism). If someone comes up with a secular usage, disambiguation might be in order, but I suspect there isn't because in that case one generally talks of "reparations" without reference to some act or another. If disambiguation is required, I would prefer the second option given that "Catholic" acts of reparation suggests there is a general class of which the Catholic sort is a more specific model. But there isn't: it's a Catholic term only, as far as I am aware, for a class of rite peculiar to them. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't we make sure it's not a proper noun, and the article isn't mistitled? The lead of Acts of reparation uses "Act of Reparation," as do several sources. The article has never been moved or had a discussion regarding the title. I've started a discussion at the article talk page, but it seems like a good idea to hold on 'til we have consensus there. --JFH (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete Looking at the sources in order to check for capitalization, I have no confidence that liturgical authorities in the Catholic Church actually think of this as a distinct category of rites. The encyclical referenced is the only source I've seen that might constitute thought about a class of reparations and liturgical acts, and I haven't read it closely enough to be sure of even that. Nothing else comes close: there are various prayers titled "An Act of", but I see no evidence at all of them being thought of as being instances of a particular kind of rite. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had similar difficulties in finding info on this class of rite, if it is indeed such a class. If not, I'm not sure if this is unassociated topics with a shared name or if there is enough similarity to constitute a logical grouping of some sort. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "rites" really, just prayers; the "act" is saying the prayer. The main article begins: "In the Roman Catholic tradition, an Act of Reparation is a prayer or devotion ..." and they are only categorized as prayers. I'm dubious they need their own category. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 17 January 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.
