Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 4 July 6 >

July 5[edit]

Category:Christian denominations and unions by century established[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. Since the subcategories were not nominated, they should be processed as speedies. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm assuming "union" means denominational union (merge of several denominations into one). Denominational unions are denominations. JFH (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Union" is a term for movements, -isms, denominational families, and any groups of locals church and oppose being labled a denomination because of the idea that any denomination is bad. Union is also an aid to avoiding arguments over whether something is or is not an denomination. Some of the many examples: *Novatianism *Gothic Christianity *Reformed Baptists *Sovereign Grace Ministries. -tahc chat 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other six categorization schemes under Category:Christian denominations aren't doing it this way. Including movements and denominational families in the same categorization scheme as actual organizations is problematic. Denominations have organizational structures and belong in Category:Christian organizations; movements and denominational families do not have structures and belong in Category:Christian movements. Whether or not a denomination wants to be called a denomination, Category:Christian denominations has a description to allow us to categorize them. All the examples you gave are movements except SGM, which is currently in Category:Apostolic networks, which has been in Category:Christian denominations since 2008 at the latest. It's possible that there is a better term than "denomination," but I've never heard any of one of these groups called a "union." --JFH (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JFH wants to denominational families and denominations (yes the two are different, but there is no good way of keeping denominational families out of denomination Categories). People will assume that "Baptist" is a denomination until you explain to them one at a time.)
Beeswaxcandle, on the other hand, wants to fold them all into [Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment] (to me, Category:Religious organizations established in 1983 have almost nothing in common with each other. It is just a way to keep the size of the category done.)
Keeping it as is seems good to me, but there could well be a better name than what we have now. tahc chat
It's not my idea to separate denominations and denominational families; see the description at Category:Christian denominations, and notice that this is the only one of the many categorization schemes there where we are combining these. I don't think it's that hard to understand that the American Baptist Churches USA is a different thing than the Baptists. Not only are we talking about different things, but it's very difficult to say when a movement or a denominational family was established. It doesn't appear that we are categorizing any other type of movement by century. As for the separate issue Beeswaxcandle brings up, I don't really have a view. It doesn't seem like a problem to have a separate denominations by century scheme within Christian organizations by century. --JFH (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete both along with the rest of this tree. It attempts to duplicates the tree Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment, which is far more comprehensive. I found the second tree by looking for Uniting Church in Australia within the first tree (it's not there). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer deletion, or actually merging, to doing nothing. Category:Christian organizations by century seems like a better fit, unless you want to delete that too. Do you think Category:Christian movements by century should be created to split the movements to? --JFH (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed a Unitarian organization under the Protestant heading. Is this even an agreed upon parenting for Unitarianism?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protestantism discusses them without saying they are not Protestants, and Unitarianism discusses their historical roots in Protestantism as well as their divergence from "several conventional Protestant doctrines," but never says they aren't Protestants. --JFH (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I think consensus is for a delete or a merge. Not sure which is preferred, probably the merge, but to what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still just for renaming and purging movements/denominational families. There is at least a potential that someone would be interested is seeing all the Christian denominations established in a given century. Failing that, I am for merging to the Christian organizations by century tree, with the understanding that movements and denominational families be excluded. --JFH (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: also rename all subcategories -- The fact that it covers "unions and movements" can adeqauately be convered in a headnote. Unitarians are clearly a Protestant denomination. However, I am not sure how useful it is to split out the Protestants, and would support merging that into the "Christian" one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 7 July 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:Luminism[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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are two uses of Luminism in the art world. This is only for one of them. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 5 July 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:Virtuti Militari[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is redundant to Category:Recipients of the Virtuti Militari‎ or Virtuti Militari. The Legend of Zorro 11:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I had to read this about three times but what it comes down to is that we don't need a category for a military decoration which only contains the decoration and a subcategory for its recipients. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed the problem with the nom, which should make a bit more sense now. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but ensure that the subcat is adequately categorised, as if we were upmerging it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 7 July 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:Future amusement parks[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am proposing that these categories be renamed mainly for consistency reasons. The three categories branch from Category:Proposed infrastructure which features a number of categories in the form of "Proposed x". Additionally, this category as it stands today might be considered a breach of WP:PRECISELANG due to its use of the word "currently". Themeparkgc  Talk  06:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (But for the Time Traveling Wikipedia, "Future amusement parks" might be very important. ... tt.wikipedia.org?) --Lquilter (talk) 17:00, 11 July 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:Double-named places in Australia[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: Listify. The ones that were not in the existing list were added to Talk:List of Australian repeated place names to be added to the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian repeated place names

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization based on linguistic details of the naming of the item is WP:OC#SHAREDNAME, see related cfds below.. This one was apparently listified already. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has previously been brought to CfD twice, with it being kept both times (see here and here). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the first close allowed anyone to listify and empty the categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the specific exception of this one. Frickeg (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. Oculi (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons that were put forward in the previous discussions. The double names are linked to aboriginal languages, so this helps students to study them, as was pointed out before. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Students can still study them as a list. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I do understand that there is some research value to this for linguistic reasons, it's much better presented in list format rather than as a category, because the list can go into detail about why it's significant — as a category, however, it lacks that context and serves only to group unrelated topics by a superficial characteristic of their names, and therefore isn't useful and violates WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES in this form. Listify, and delete category. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There appears already to be a list, but it should be checked if it is comprehensive. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and listify if necessary. Consensus may have changed, we shouldn't categorize based on things like this as they aren't defining. and per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 19 July 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:Double-named places in New Zealand[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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorization based on linguistic details of the naming of the item is WP:OC#SHAREDNAME, see related cfd below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 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:Double-named places[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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A third go-round for this category. It was barely kept last time (5 years ago), but we've a much better understanding and consensus around what is unrelated matter with shared names (WP:OCAT) and this is the same. Even with the concept of "reduplication" is no more relational than Category:Cities named for Stalin, Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States, and Category:Non-Christian religious placenames in Britain among many others. This can (and mostly is already listified)], but the cat ought to go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAME. Oculi (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to a list of lists, with each subcategory being a separate list, and a further list for the remainder -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This deals with cases outside Austrial and New Zealand. The list should be cross-referred to those articles (or they all should be merged into one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We categorze by what things are, not what they are named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 July 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:Foreign-language broadcasting in the United States[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. No objection to a follow on nomination if a better name is identified. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navajo is indigenous to the South West US. Otherwise, I agree as has been pointed out on several occasions, the US doesn't have an official language, thus "foreign language" is often shorthand for "non-English" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom but to easy on accusations of POV pushing I don't think that was the intent - as Carlos notes, foreign is (wrongly or rightly) a shorthand for non-English.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand the rationale behind this nomination, but don't agree that this is the appropriate new name for it — the problem, as always, is with the concept of defining "X" as "Non-Y". Consider other possible analogues here — redefining "female" categories as "non-male", "LGBT" categories as "non-heterosexual", etc. — and you'll see the problem; labelling X as Non-Y is pretty consistently considered the absolute worst thing you can possibly do when it comes to defining and labelling cultural identities. For an alternative, however, I put forward that the analogous categories for Canada are named "Multicultural and ethnic" (e.g. Category:Multicultural and ethnic television in Canada, etc.) — which is still possibly not ideal, but at least it neutrally and objectively defines the entities as an X of their own rather than as a non-Y. I'm down with the rename, but would accordingly propose Category:Multicultural and ethnic broadcasting in the United States instead. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the same thing though. In the United States a large amount of the ethnic broadcasting is done in English. I think in this case, our choices are to name it non-English, or to stop categorizing these together at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, it's never appropriate to label anything as "Non-Y" instead of "X". I'm not wedded to the specific name I proposed, having simply put it forward for discussion, but there's surely some alternative name that these can be grouped under which defines them by what they are instead of what they aren't. There's surely some alternative name that these can be grouped under which doesn't require a "non-" in it. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they are only unified by what they are not, which is not broadcasting in English. That is the only thing that joins them together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still ways to define that in a positive, attributive "is this" way rather than a negative "non-that" one. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too far Bearcat. You have non-native speakers of a language, you have non-profits, etc. One neutral way to categorize these would be based on continent, so we could have Category:Asian language broadcasting and Category:European language broadcasting etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have a whole "non-governmental organizations" tree. What we don't do is create non-x whole cloth, but in this case this is how things are group in actuality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-profit organizations" and "non-governmental organizations" are the actual proper names of those specific classes of things, such that they fall under "defining this class of thing as what it is" — they're not the same thing as imposing a label that defines something as "not its opposite". The equivalent here would be naming female categories as "non-male" or LGBT categories as "non-heterosexual", not naming non-profit agencies as non-profit agencies — because imposing an involuntary label from the outside is not the same thing as defining the class of thing by the term it uses for itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the fact that "non-English language" is an actually used term in a way that your other preposals are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see some properly sourced evidence of that, because it doesn't even approach the suburbs of truth in my experience. "Non-English" things are defined by the language that they are, not by the language that they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1]. If you do the same search and keep wikipedia in the title, you'll see we have several other categories of non-english-language X in wikipedia, so there is already a default consensus that this wording is fine. Your theoretical point is reasonable BC, but you haven't provided a better option here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is a general consensus that a rename could be appropriate. Unresolved is whether we should use "non-English" or some other non-negative attribution. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I don't think there is a phrase in under say 100 words to encapsulate "Non-English-language broadcasting". Oculi (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you're right that there isn't a phrase — but only on the technicality that there isn't "one", because there are several other options rather than none. "Multilingual" and "minority language", for two starters. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't multi-lingual, these are broadcasting in only one language. "Minority language" is questionable in some areas of the United States, because it may well be the majority speaks Spanish. If we can't go with "non-English", then we should scrap the category entirely and just categorize broadcasters by language, and not try to group multiple languages together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no problem with that plan. Although I do have to warn it would involve a lot of work to categorize all the English-language braodcasters in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 27 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_5&oldid=1138398178"