Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 5

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

June 5[edit]

Category:1936 establishments in Guinea-Bissau[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) 22:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have evidence we actually do this, for example Category:1936 establishments in India includes a school founded that year in Karachi, which was clearly India at the time, even if it would later be in Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone seems to have been determined to make this down right difficult. This is the only child of that parent. There are no direct articles in it. I really did not see the need to drag that additional category in here, but it should be renamed too. People have gone overboard in creating these unwisely named categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to make things difficult. It just seems strange to me that we would discuss renaming Category:1936 establishments in Guinea-Bissau but not its parent Category:1936 in Guinea-Bissau. We would not want them to be named differently. IMO, proposing piecemeal work like this on the category tree (unless one plans on doing a follow-up nomination) can result in a greater mess than what currently exists—at least right now we have consistency and uniformity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have consistently and uniform bad policy. This is the only one of the involved categories that has any direct contents anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about as I referenced no "policy". (But if you want policies changed, you need to propose changing them and get consensus for doing so.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, I have nominated Category:1936 in Guinea-Bissau for renaming, not sure if its best to merge the two noms as they are on different dates. Tim! (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as the result is the same for both, it probably doesn't matter. At minimum, interlinking the two discussions is probably a good idea. There. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname -- This and all others pre-1973 should use Portuguese Guinea, sicne that was its name at the time, but Guinea-Bissau should remain the ultimate parent, so that we do not get some nonsence of the country being ceasing, when it in fact continued with a new identity. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, please keep a redirect and keep within Category:Years in Guinea-Bissau tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1936 establishments and Category:Establishments in Guinea-Bissau, and Category:Establishments in Portuguese Guinea would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 15 June 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:Imprisoned Buddhist monks[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. (If anyone wants to consider the articles for inclusion in Category:Persecution of Buddhists, the articles in the category were banishment of Buddhist monks from Nepal, Kumar Kashyap Mahasthavir, Bauddha Rishi Mahapragya, Pragyananda Mahasthavir, and Sudarshan Mahasthavir. There was no consensus as to which of these, if any, should be selectively upmerged, so I'm not performing any, but that doesn't mean that users can't pursue the issue. The listifying to Persecution of Buddhists option was also mentioned.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have a well-developed Category:Prisoners and detainees tree, which has prisoners by nationality and prison. I don't think we should start a new Category:Prisoners by religion, which is what this would more or less fit into (in fact, this is religion + job). I don't think Category:Imprisoned Catholic priests or Category:Imprisoned Muslim imams or even Category:Imprisoned Protestants would be good ideas, so this one has to go. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but focus. It ought to be appropriate to have categories for prisoners of conscience by religion. However, this should be about monks imprisoned because they were Buddhists, not merely for prisoners who happen to be Buddhists. Perhaps we do already: if so, merege there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no easy way to keep this limited to those imprisoned for being Buddhist, and in too many cases whether being Buddhist was a reason for imprisonment will be a point of debate. One man's political prisoner is another person's imprisoned revolutionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Peterkingiron. I, for one, don't have an issue with a new Category:Prisoners by religion.  Brendon is here 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Persecution of Buddhists. We do not have categories for prisoners of conscience, as that would not be WP:NPOV, except for Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience which is objectively defined. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I think we should delete the last mentioned category because it gives undue weight to the views of one group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The information that this category presents can only work in the form of an article (see Persecution of Buddhists) or list. Under its current title, the category fails to convey its intended scope and reflects an intersection of characteristics that is patently trivial—e.g., nothing in the name Category:Imprisoned Buddhist monks would exclude a Buddhist monk who was imprisoned for one month for public drunkenness in his youth. Category:Imprisoned Buddhists would be even worse in this respect, as it replaces a religious occupation (Buddhist monk) with a religion (Buddhism). It would be nice to be able to "focus" the category to include only prisoners of conscience by religion, but I see no way to do that and none has been offered. I mildly oppose merging to Category:Persecution of Buddhists as I do not think it would be good practice to categorize people in such general topic categories (e.g., Oprah Winfrey in Category:Racism in Switzerland; context). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. If necessary selectively listify to Persecution of Buddhists, check that articles are in another Buddhist monks category. DexDor (talk) 08:42, 24 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:Parent categories[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. The one editor defending this category has not come up with a clear purpose & justification for it, distinct from container categories and fundamental categories. At present it contains a rather odd collection of just 48 categories, some of which are in sets e.g. films by parameter, but mostly unrelated; it will not be much of a loss, nor hard to reinstate if a different consensus emerges elsewhere or later. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I discussed the purpose of this page with the creator, but I've not been convinced that this is really different from Category:Container categories. As such it should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The purpose of this category is to provide the resource which "container categories" was meant to be all along, but which it became too unwieldy to provide. Wikipedia needs one category where broad parent categories for topical areas can be assembled and reviewed, for editors who wish to utilize them. The criteria is simple; any category which is a broad top-level category and which is designed by definition for encompassing other categories within a particular criteria area. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, that is a very vague criteria, and it sounds like you don't like the fact that container categories has so many members. But that's sort of how things go - there are *lots* of container categories. We do have Category:Fundamental categories, which is perhaps close to what you want in terms of "top-level" categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may also look at Category:Main_topic_classifications, which might provide what you're looking for. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with container categories is that it contains numerous iterations of the same sub-categorization. so, for example, it contains about 60 individual categories for "anime by year," starting with "1933 anime," and then going up, almost year by year, all the way up to "1994 anime." As you reasonably note, that's how things go. so, by the same token, we now have "Parent categories," which is eminently more useful for the average user, since it would only have the single parent category which is for all such sub-categories for anime by year. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are claiming that it is perfectly okay for us to retain "container categories," which has the following contents (below), yet not retain "Parent categories," which is eminently more useful and readable for the average editor.

17th-century Asian people‎ (7 C, 1 P) ► 17th-century European people‎ (22 C, 1 P) ► 17th-century Jewish physicians‎ (4 C) ► 17th-century men‎ (1 C) ► 17th-century Ottoman people‎ (4 C, 50 P) ► 17th-century people by nationality‎ (56 C) ► 17th-century physicians‎ (23 C, 4 P) ► 17th-century religious buildings‎ (93 C, 6 P) ► 17th-century school buildings‎ (1 C) ► 18th-century Asian people‎ (8 C, 9 P) ► 18th-century British medical doctors‎ (3 C) ► 18th-century Croatian people‎ (8 P) ► 18th-century European people‎ (20 C, 7 P) ► 18th-century Jewish physicians‎ (6 C) ► 18th-century men‎ (1 C) ► 18th-century Ottoman people‎ (4 C, 71 P) ► 18th-century people by nationality‎ (66 C) ► 18th-century physicians‎ (29 C, 5 P) ► 18th-century religious buildings‎ (103 C, 7 P)

► 18th-century school buildings‎ (27 C)

--Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Container categories has over 4000 categories. You have identified a few that didn't have the "container category" tag added to them, but this has now been resolved. I would estimate that there are probably several thousand more that are self-evidently container categories, but which don't have the tag added - it's really neither here nor there, and if you'd like to go and add the container category tag to thousands of more categories please be my guest. The problem is, you haven't come up with a clear metric by which Category:Parent categories should be populated - either it will end up almost the same as Category:Container categories (perhaps with certain duplicates removed), or it will end up the same as Category:Main topic classifications. I don't see a middle ground where this notion of "parent" cat is useful. Take a look at this page: [1] and quickly tell me, which ones are "parent" cats, and which ones aren't? Your terminology doesn't make sense... All cats are parents of other cats, and some cats are the highest level parents, and for those, we already have categories to hold them. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the truth is that you and I are the same type of person, arguing over the same type of idea, only from different angles. you are saying that it is okay for us to retain "container categories," with its overly expansive approach to categorization, and you are also saying it is good for us to retain the strict hierarchicalization inherent in "Main topic classifications." The problem is that you are trying to argue for both positions at once. I am simply trying to insert an other element between the two, one which will be eminently useful for average editors, and for the benefit of the project as a whole. it adds a little bit of the subjectivity inherent in the hierarchy below it, but keeps it consolidated. it will be good for the project. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to answer your question, from the page which you cited, THIS is a parent category: ► Olympic competitors by country‎ (220 C)
while THESE are not:

► Olympic competitors for Afghanistan‎ (6 C)

► Olympic competitors for Albania‎ (7 C) ► Olympic competitors for Algeria‎ (19 C) ► Olympic competitors for American Samoa‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Andorra‎ (8 C) ► Olympic competitors for Angola‎ (8 C) ► Olympic competitors for Antigua and Barbuda‎ (3 C) ► Olympic competitors for Argentina‎ (36 C) ► Olympic competitors for Armenia‎ (17 C) ► Olympic competitors for Aruba‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Australasia‎ (8 C) ► Olympic competitors for Australia‎ (47 C) ► Olympic competitors for Austria‎ (40 C) ► Olympic competitors for Azerbaijan‎ (16 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bahrain‎ (6 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bangladesh‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Barbados‎ (6 C) ► Olympic competitors for Belarus‎ (31 C) ► Olympic competitors for Belgium‎ (34 C) ► Olympic competitors for Belize‎ (4 C) ► Olympic competitors for Benin‎ (5 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bermuda‎ (10 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bhutan‎ (2 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bohemia‎ (7 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bolivia‎ (9 C) ► Olympic competitors for Bosnia and Herzegovina‎ (9 C) ► Olympic competitors for Botswana‎ (4 C)

► Olympic competitors for Brazil‎ (33 C)

--Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what about Category:Sports_competitors_by_competition_and_nationality? Is that also a "parent"? what about Category:Sportspeople_by_nationality or Category:People_by_occupation_and_nationality or Category:People_by_nationality or Category:Categories_by_nationality. You can just keep going up the tree, and it's "parents" all the way, until you hit the fundamental categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a fair question. as you said, you are comfortable with the repetition which is inherent with "Container categories." so yes, we would still have some of the same repetitiveness which now occurs in "Container categories." we would simply avoid some of the unwieldiness which comes from having dozens of iterations of the same subcategorization.
In the cases which you cited, yes, one might expect to see some parallel items within the "Parent categories," such as "People by nationality," "People by occupation," "Sportspeople by club or team‎," "Sportspeople by position," "Sportspeople by sport," etc etc. but it would be no different than the type of expansiveness and obvious repetition which is currently found in the category "Container categories." We would simply be utilizing certain criteria, which it would make it more useful for the average editor. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right - so you'd like it to be just like Container categories, but without any of the repetition? The way container categories is populated is through placement of a template. Are you suggesting we create a new template, or modify the existing one, to populate "Parent categories" accordingly? Again, I don't think this is workable, and having a bit of replication in that category is fine, which is not for users in any case but for editors and admins, it is a hidden category. I think your suggestion is to create a mostly duplicate category that would have many thousands of entries, but without things like Category:Olympic competitors for Estonia‎ - perhaps Category:Categories by parameter is what you want instead? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i do hear your point. I understand your suggestion on that. however, no, "Categories by parameter" is not quite what I had in mind. i see numerous benefits to a category which can group all parent categories together, much like "Container categories" currently does, even for those which may be within other categories. As for how to do it, I wasn't thinking of a template, but more like conventionally adding items manually to the category. the key here is those cats which are top-level for a notable topical area. so, "Sportspeople by position" is an excellent example, being the top-level category for that topical area, with no parallel whatsoever above it. there are benefits to grouping all such categories together, which would not be not attainable if we keep only a strictly top-level category which shows only the 8 or 9 umbrella categories at the very top. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's very unlikely that editors will understand the nuances of the distinction between container categories and parent categories. The category creator has not provided a convincing argument as to why this extra complication to the WP category structure is necessary. I suggest if he/she has ideas like this in the future they raise them at categorization talk, village pump etc to get consensus first. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. well, if we had to choose between the two, what do you feel would be a reason to keep the category "container categories"? in my opinion, actually "parent categories" would be the one we should keep. "container categories" seems kind of unnecessary, and too expansive right now. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this discussion is inadequately canvassed - there is a constant problem on wp en of people adding parent cats with child cats on article category space - which makes a mess of things (showing the inadequate understanding of most editors of category trees and relationships), and the 'parent' or 'container' needs to be clearly identified - I think it is important to resolve the above - so that (a) it is very clear there is not a need to bank up parent and child cats in one article, and where possible to (b) clearly identify container categories. How it might be resolved, I am not sure from the above conversation - it needs to be done as wp en is littered with over-categorisation, and multiple pile ups of combined parent and child categories on articles. sats 08:33, 8 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.

CINI and CINI people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an eponymous category for the organization CINI, and category:CINI people. It's overcategorization by association. The dozen or so people in the organization are mostly notable for their activism in these areas, AND for other things (film production, politics) -- but not primarily or solely for their CINI work. So categorizing the people by their association with this one organization, among their many affiliations, would usually be overcategorization. After purging all the people for whom this category would be overcategorization, I doubt there would be more than one or two at most in the category:CINI people category. And then for the category:CINI category more generally, I don't anticipate a lot of articles being created on CINI topics particularly. Lquilter (talk) 15:42, 5 June 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:Esperanto language[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: no action: at time of close Category:Esperanto language simply redirects to Category:Esperanto (a non-participant in this discussion merged them); main article is at Esperanto. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Esperanto — Lfdder (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge categorization should be under the language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in this case. Category:Esperanto should be the name to match the article Esperanto, where the label "language" is unnecessary since Esperanto is only a language and not also the name of an ethnicity or the like. Angr (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Esperanto language and keep Category:Esperanto as the general category. As Angr notes, Esperanto names the language without the problem of ambiguity between a language and something else as exists with, say, English or Chinese, so an additional descriptor is not necessary. Furthermore, the category includes subcategories that relate to the culture of Esperanto (language) users, such as Category:Esperanto movement and Category:Writers of Esperanto literature. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Esperanto language (possibly vice versa). As an invented language, there is no ethnicity. Literature in Esperanto should obviously be a sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 8 June 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:Depeche Mode members[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough members to warrant en entire category. Depeche Mode#Band members is good enough. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 13:44, 5 June 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:Works originally published in Tatler[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 to Category:Works originally published in Tatler (1709 journal), following move of Tatler (1709 journal). – Fayenatic London 14:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are multiple "Tatler"s . The current two articles are for the Tatler (1709), but the Tatler (1901) has also published works, and it is the fashion rag, while the 1709 version isn't what would now be called a fashion mag. The category is in the fashion mag tree. So... should this be renamed to 1901 or 1709? And with only two articles, should we delete it instead? Additionally, there are many Tatlers around the world. 65.94.79.6 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah didn't find that one. Ugh. Ok, well, I'm not motivated to take on this whole tree then. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is something to be said for the position that all such categorizations are of limited utility. However, from certain standpoints (eg, legal copyright) the information can be useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some publications are of indisputable historical and literary historical interest; some works are notable in part or whole because they were originally published in a particular forum. It's a slippery slope to be sure. We should not categorize all works by their first publisher/venue/whatever. It should be more like "awards", where it's only extremely notable first publications. --Lquilter (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' akin to performer by performance; what next: news by newsbreaker (first heard on CNN? on Al Jazeerah? on BBC?), works by where first performed (at La Scala, on Broadway, in San Francisco), c'mon this is overcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1709 journal was a literary magazine of some note - hence the category, I suppose. However, with it having only two entries, I agree with GOF that the articles should be moved into the parent category, Category:Works originally published in literary magazines, and this one deleted. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC) After a little more research I've changed my mind on this one. The category should remain - there are several similar categories with only a very small number of members - but be renamed to clarify that it refers to the 1709 Tatler, and be taken out of the 'fashion magazine' tree (it was only ever there because of confusion between the two unrelated Tatlers) and moved to the 'literary magazine' tree. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:07, 17 June 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:Protestant ministers by denomination[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: ALT-2: merge Category:Protestant ministers by denomination to Category:Protestant clergy by denomination to a new Category:Protestant religious leaders by denomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. See recent related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 19#Category:Christian ministers, where it was agreed to keep the word "ministers" for denominations that use it, but to do away with multiple tiers of categories for "ministers" and "clergy". "Foo clergy" and "Goo ministers" categories should be side-by-side at the same level depending which is the usual term in each denomination.
Some Protestants e.g. Lutherans & Anglicans use the word "clergy", and Category:Protestant clergy has a well-developed hierarchy, so I propose to leave that in place. However, reasonable alternatives to this nomination would be:
ALT-1: Reverse merge to Protestant ministers by denomination.
ALT-2: Merge both to new Category:Protestant religious leaders by denomination, following parent Category:Christian religious leaders.
– Fayenatic London 13:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting example of a category structure that uses the same term across multiple denominations. OK, so it's not "religious leaders" per ALT-2, but the point is that it could be and it shows that a term can be used across multiple denominations. See Category:Church of Ireland clergy where all orders are present - archbishops, bishops, priests, archdeacons, deans. The same is true for Category:Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. Even Category:Irish Presbyterian clergy is happy to be called clergy. All have Category:Irish Christian clergy as their parent. Who'd have thought that such congenial ecumenism was possible in Ireland of all places? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Merge both to Category:Protestant religious leaders by denomination (ALT-2) Merging into Category:Protestant clergy by denomination is the next best option (after ALT-2), but a drawback is the some denominations have deacons and consider them clergy, while others have them and and consider them non-clergy. tahc chat 22:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT-2 until we get into a denomination or denominational family, we should use a descriptive title for the occupation. "Clergy" implies ordination, and it is arbitrary to separate ordained and unordained people who do the same thing, especially when ordination has different meanings in different denominations (in the LDS church all male members are ordained and in Presbyterianism lay elders and deacons are ordained). "Minister" has conflicting meanings for different denominations. --JFH (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer clergy. We will never get a solution that perfectly fits all denominations. However this should not dictate nthe solution for particular denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go with religious leaders. Some people are prominent in leading people in a religious sense without technically being clergy. Also, some Protestant groups do not have clergy, but they have religious leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 7 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.

Baptist clergy[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 to "ministers" form. I realize this wasn't clear-cut, so let me break it down. First, the count (I know, I know—consensus is not a vote count—but you've got to start somewhere when trying to figure out overall preferences). There were three options that were presented: "ministers" (nomination), "religious leaders" (alternate proposal), and "clergy" (status quo). Since there were three options, some users (but not all) ranked their top two preferences. "Ministers" received three #1 votes and zero #2 votes. "Religious leaders" received two #1 votes and one #2 vote. "Clergy" received zero #1 votes and two #2 votes. It seems that a "no consensus" result is therefore going to be looked upon favourably by no one, since that would result in defaulting to "clergy", which no one chose as their #1 preference. So it's worthwhile here to make a decision between "ministers" and "religious leaders". On pure numbers, "ministers" was slightly favoured. The fact that Category:Presbyterian clergy by nationality was renamed to Category:Presbyterian ministers by nationality and Category:Methodist clergy was renamed to Category:Methodist ministers lends some further strength in favour of "ministers". True, Category:Protestant ministers by denomination and Category:Protestant clergy by denomination were both renamed to Category:Protestant religious leaders by denomination, but "Protestant" is much broader than "Presbyterian", "Methodist", or "Baptist", and this close brings consistency between the latter three category trees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge/rename Baptist clergy to minsters. See recent related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 19#Category:Christian ministers, where it was agreed to keep the word "ministers" for denominations that use it, but to do away with multiple tiers of categories for "ministers" and "clergy". Of the 17 pages in Southern Baptist clergy, only Monroe E. Dodd is identified in the lead as a clergyman; most use the words minister or pastor. Some of the nominated category pages make a distinction e.g. "Clergy are Christians who are formally ordained for leadership within local congregations, and so are authorized to perform weddings, baptisms, or funerals," but this is probably not consistently applied, nor do I find it useful. As for the sub-cats of Category:Baptist clergy by period, they can be dealt with speedily if this nomination is agreed. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Frankly, yes. The logic is inescapable, the meaning clear and the language neutral. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:30, 9 June 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:Methodist clergy[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: Merge. There seem to be several unresolved questions, but a merge was clearly indicated. Looks like some cleanup may be needed. If that reveals a need for a new nomination so be it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge for the same reasons given above for Baptists, and speedily rename all sub-cats starting with "Methodist clergy" afterwards. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 5 June 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:Mascot Hall of Fame inductees[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD). For info: there is a list at Mascot Hall of Fame. DexDor (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Halls of Fame typically recognize notability in a given field; they don't confer new notability. --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 5 June 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:Modern military equipment of Germany[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "modern" is very ambiguous - which leads to anomalies like this category (which says "approximately since 1990") containing articles like Bergmann 1896 (via this and this). There are already some post-Cold War categories (e.g. Category:Military vehicles of the post–Cold War period). DexDor (talk) 04:43, 5 June 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:ABC Sport[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a sport (e.g. Bowls) has been broadcast on ABC Sport is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the sport. DexDor (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice Wow. Classic not-defining example. Performer-by-performance also in a way. Delete delete delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:10, 5 June 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_June_5&oldid=1138398254"