Category:Christian religious leaders by period[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 whilst the objections about religious leaders not always being clergy was theoretically true, in fact non of the sub cat members are not clergy so its like discussing angles on a pin, not what categories are for. Salix (talk): 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think that this precedent is applicable in this case. There is no ordained clergy in Islam (hence the decision in the cited case). This is not the case for Christian clergy who are ordained. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. If the nominator believes that "Christian religious leaders" is the same thing as "Christian clergy", then all he should propose the merger (not deleton) of Category:Christian religious leaders and all its subcats. No part of the noiminator';s rationale offers any justification for singling out only this subcat. In any case, the assumption that "religious leader"="clergy" is nonsense. Plenty of significant religious leaders (such as evangelists and saints) have not been clergy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That a flawed cat may be part of a larger flawed tree is no reason to oppose a nomination. Each nomination stands on its own merits. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—as BHG says not all religious leaders are clergy; but also not all clergy are religious leaders. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a religious leader as well as being a member of the clergy. However, the assistant priest at St. Hilda's Parish, Titirangi is a member of the clergy but is not religious leader. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked in several denominational categories by period. For example Lutherans, RC, Eastern Orthodox etc. Not one has a cat for "Foo denomination leaders". Only clery-type subcats exist for each denomination. Where is the phantom "Christian religious leaders who are not clergy" supposed to exist? If the objection is based on a theoretically possible, but highly unlikely in reality basis, then I think that it should be withdrawn. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subcats of this are the clergy cat, a bishops cat and a Roman Catholic bishops cat. There are no other subcats and no direct articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 9 March 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 The "Early Church" usually refers to the Ante-Nicene Period. These, however, go as far as the 11th-century. So at the very least they need to be renamed. But I think that deletion is preferable. It seems to be a quite arbitrary subset of Category:Archbishops by century and Category:Bishops by century. Best to leave it to those categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category creator intended it for bishops and archbishops antedating the East-West Schism of 1054. I do not know if this is a meaningful distinction.- choster (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Early church ought to be defined as Ante-Nicene. I note that almost all the "archbishops" of the first few centuries are popes. However, I doubt there was much distinction between bishop and archbishop in the early church. It is anachronistic to regard the see of Rome as having much primacy in the early centuries. The early popes were merely bishops of Rome. To claim otherwise is a Catholic POV, which will be disputed by most non-Catholics. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Archbishops and Bishops by century categories adequately cover the subject. An empty parent category is effectively useless. Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unneeded parent to the by century cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 7 March 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 redirect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "All Nippon Airways S.C." was renamed "Yokohama Flügels" in 1987. As these are the same team that was simply renamed, per convention categorisation should simply be at the most recent name. The BushrangerOne ping only 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to Yokohama Flügels the name changed co-incided with the club becoming an inaugural member of the J League (1993). If so, it wasn't merely a cosmetic change, but one singling a move from semi- to full professionalism. Mayumashu (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And past precedent at CfD is that changing leagues is not sufficent for seperate categorisation of players. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the legue change does not really change the fact that this is the same instutition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 6 April 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 My main objection is two fold. 1-the category criteria are messed up. 2-The inclusion criteria are too loose and lack a clear yes or no line. 3-this may or may not be a by language category, having no way or knowing makes it unworkable. The head says "This category is for film actors who are Malayalees (having Malayalam as their mother tongue or loosely, people from Kerala). They can be actors in films in any language. This category is different from Category:Malayalam film actors, which will include actors of any language and place, who acted in Malayalam films. e.g.: Mohanlal will come under this category as well as Category:Malayalam film actors. Kamal Hasan will not fall under this category, but only under Category:Malayalam film actors. M. G. Ramachandran will fall under this category since he is a Malayali by birth (born to Malayai parants), but not under Category:Malayalam film actors, since he never acted in a Malayaalm film." First off, we cannot have this category limited to film actors, since it does not say film actors. Secondly with this description it cannot work as a partent category to Category:Malayalam film actors because 1-there are people in that category who are excluded from this category (Kamal Hasan being the listed example), 2-there are film actors who fit here but not there. Then we have the problem of is this by language, by place, or by ethnicity. They seem to want to have it both a by place category and a by language category. However we have never agreed to have "by mother tongue language" categories. Category:English-language singers is about singers in English, whether it is their mother tongue or not. This whole category is messed up and confusing. I think we would be best off deleting it, and if we actually need a category that does any of the 4 things this category could do, create more precisely named categories. At present Category:Malayalam film actors is a category grouping actors is a defined group of films, it is not a by place, by ethnicity or by nationality category. I think in the case of India these categories for films work, but I do not think there poorly defined, especially when limited to "film actors" without saying such, sister by what, place?, mother tongue? categories work. I think we should delete this category and leave the much better defined film actors cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to keep and rename this the best target would be Category:Actors from Kerala. The actors by language categories, like the singers by language categories, would most logically be limited to people who performed in the language involved. However this category explicitly includes people who never performed in Malayali and excludes people who are not from Kerala who did perform in Malayali.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just listed this at the wikipedia India talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 February 7 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment I guess I can live with a keep and prune to Category:Actors from Kerala, but it will need someone to review the category contents and make sure it works with the new rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 7 March 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:listify and delete. The subcategories are already in Category:Words and phrases by language. This close should not be considered a referendum on those subcategories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is a category about things. Cougar is an article on an animal. Cashew is an article on a nut. All the articles in this category can be categorized better as cultural concepts, animals, nuts or something else. None are about words. Secondly, cashew is not actually a native-American word, and shows how misused such a category is. "Native American" is not a language, so the whole concept behind the category is flawed at some level. However cashew comes to English from Portuguese. True, it originates at some level from an indigenous language of Brazil, which might be "Native American" by some definitions, but the word was not "cashew", but has changed over time and is not the same word. I might try pruning this category, but after looking over its contetns, I am unconvinced any of the articles are on words rather than something else, and I have seen too many people dedicated to overcategorizaing even when this means putting an article like Cougar in a category for words to have much hope that pruning the category would work in the long-run. Some words and phrases categories may work, this one clearly does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Part of a family of such categories, childen of Category:Words and phrases by language, which are not being deleted and should not be as they are navigational aids to their articles. Nomination gives no reason why this category should be deleted, but instead just picks out a few items in it to (wrongly) criticize. Hmains (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Included in this category are words from 4 different languages, while another that says "Native American word," another says Taíno people which isn't a language and a "possible something." Hardly defining. As a category it really doesn't work, nor would a companion category, Category:Native European words and phrases be much use. FWIW and IMO this category may be a great idea and we are commenting on the execution of the idea. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I tried to say above, we are supposed to categorize articles by what they are about, not what they are named. Cougar and Cashew are not articles about "Native American words", they are respitively an article on an animal and an article on a nut. Thye are clearly miscategorized here. Beyond this, the name is just false. There is no Native American language. The similar Native European language category would group words from Hungarian, German, French, Finnish and Russian, and might not even be then grouping words from as dissimilar languages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete WP an encyclopedia with articles on things, not pages on words (wiktionary). Mayumashu (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify before deletion -- We have had a series of discussions on loanword categories, of whcih this is essentially one. The fact that a word derives from a Native American language is a matter of interest and potentially encyclopaedic, but it would only be entitled to have a category if the articles contained significant discussion on the origins of the words. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 4 March 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. The "demographic" is awkward but there's not enough discussion on that subject here for a change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to this CFD demographic is only defining for mangas, and not animes. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where's the equivalent anime category tree? Since not all anime are manga, there seems to be a missing category tree. There are demographic groupings for anime as well, as the anime market in Japan is also divided by demographic (as would be expected, since pre-school targeted anime would not be appealing to older children, and late-night experimental anime is not suitable for young children) As well, adaptations of manga do not necessarily target the same audience as several manga aimed at adults have been reimagined for a younger audience (such as removing the sex scenes) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment usually, when a manga and anime share a name, they also share an article on wikipedia. This has resulted in a few oddities in the category structure at times, including this categorys name. Having anime by demographic as well would be sensible, as it is how is often categorised in reliable sources, but for the most part it would be duplicating this tree - titles where the manga is clearly in one demographic and the anime in another are not common, no more so than titles where different series/remakes/versions of the anime are in different demographics, and far less common than titles that as a whole are considered part of 2 or 3 demographics. --Qetuth (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 February 6 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename for consistency. There is no Category:Media by market, and this is the only national category so named - this is a subcategory of various "Media by city" categories, and all of its subcategories are by city, either implicitly or explicitly. This category sticks out like a sore thumb in its parent categories (e.g., Category:Media by city). Was tempted to go with a speedy C2C, but thought it was safer to bring it to a full discussion Grutness...wha? 00:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my original concern as navigation by market does seem to be adequately handled by templates. However, there is a tremendous amount of cleanup to do here, as many of the categories are in fact set up by market and not city regardless of the category name. KROQ is licensed to Pasadena, had its longtime studios in Burbank, and broadcasts from Glendale, but is found in Category:Radio stations in Los Angeles, California. WFGX similarly serves the Pensacola market and thus is found in Category:Television stations in Pensacola, Florida, but is licensed to Fort Walton Beach and has studios outside the city of Pensacola; its transmitter is not even in Florida. KVVV-TV was licensed to Galveston but located in Friendswood, yet is in Category:Television stations in Houston, Texas. At best, these categories are "by metropolitan area," not "by city."- choster (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the genre-specific level we are categorizing based on a physical location. That does not map well to a market area. Our FOX affiliate is based in Henderson but it covers the Las Vegas Valley. So what market does it cover, Henderson, Las Vegas or the Las Vegas metropolitan area? What exactly is the market area for say Buffalo, New York? Does it include Canada or not? What about the San Diego media? Or Tijuana? Where you are based does not equate directly to market area. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- However, (1) what are Canadian categories doing here (2) TV and radio subcategories need to be renamed as well (3) National (or statewide) stations ought not to appear in city categories, even if receivable in them, as that is a mere performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no national television or radio broadcast stations in the U.S., only cable and satellite.- choster (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all other countries seem to list regional - but not national - radio and TV stations in their respective city categories when the station is based in that city. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There were some copyright issues with our market area articles/lists. I'm not sure that this change would be a violation of agreement in place. Also, these are not city related but more metro area or area based. So I don't believe that a case for the change has been made. Simply put there are too many questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:20, 8 March 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.
