Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 13 December 15 >

December 14[edit]

Category:Russian Orthodox Christians[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 consensus - This has been open for quite sometime, and in the meantime, as noted below, a subsequent discussion has apparently changed the standard. So with that in mind, no prejudice against an immediate re-nomination. - jc37 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nominator's rationale: There's two problems at stake here, namely 1) confusion and 2) overlap. For many editors difficult to distinct between the nominated category (which relates to the Russian Orthodox Church) on the one hand and Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Russia (which relates to Russian nationality). This is the case despite the fact that the headers of the categories are clear about it. Russian members of the Russian Orthodox Church are actually randomly categorized in one of the two categories, or in both. Which makes the two categories a bit overlapping, but the overlap should actually be bigger than it currently is, because many editors use only one of the two categories.
  1. The first part of the solution that this proposal offers is to rename Category:Russian Orthodox Christians into Category:Members of the Russian Orthodox Church, just to make it clearer.
  2. The second part of the solution that this proposal offers is to create a child category Category:Russian members of the Russian Orthodox Church in which most members can be merged of the two categories that are being confused with each other (i.e. Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Russia and the nominated category), whereas this child category will be created in order to avoid having two largely overlapping categories. This child category can also be parented to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Russia.
Complicated stuff, I hope I made it clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I understand, as I was involved in originally constructing the distinction. I agree that it remains unclear and confusing. I agree that these changes could be done, so long as we propose similar fixes for the other subcategories of Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by jurisdiction. A "members of" format will be much better for these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fully agree with the first proposed change as making the scope much easier to understand. I'm less convinced of the need for the second category, but I'm more neutral than opposed. I'm also not sure why there is no nomination to rename to Category:Russian members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but happy to leave that to another nom. SFB 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose for this you mean to rename Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Russia to Category:Russian members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, right? That would be fine with me, except we should make the target plural i.e. Category:Russian members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (churches by country of origin) while we are avoiding the plural in the current name. Even so, I think it's an improvement indeed. Perhaps, suppose there aren't any Russian members of non-Russian Eastern Orthodox Churches, then this category will coincide with the proposed Category:Russian members of the Russian Orthodox Church and thus this category Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Russia will become redundant and can be deleted, which would be even better for avoiding confusion. Maybe this is wishful thinking but it wouldn't quite surprise me if this were the case. We can only see this happening after we have executed the proposed split. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also not terribly enthusiastic about step 2. It could be seen as a help in this situation where the two categories will have massive overlaps, but strictly speaking I wouldn't say it's absolutely necessary. It's an addition to the scheme, to be sure, rather than a fix of what already exists. It will combine two categories into one on a lot of articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure there should be a massive overlap (although not actually visible yet) and this second step will encourage that editors no longer randomly categorize biographies in just one of the two categories, but instead in their one common child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the fact that there's a major overlap makes sense. I understand why we would combine the two for a subcategory of this type. I'm not too worried about it either way. What you say below about creating it at your own risk later might be a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To make the discussion easier, let's just try to reach consensus on step 1 (the rename) and let me create the child category at my own risk. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would bend towards opposition, as the Russian Orthodox Christians is a cultural term more than a reference to a country or the Russian Orthodox Church as an organization. One is Russian Orthodox when one practices the flavour of Eastern Orthodoxy that uses Russian traditions, i.e. with music style, liturgical language or hierarchy of titles, for instance, slightly different than in Greek, Romanian or Serbian Orthodoxy, even though they are still considered the same religion. For instance, the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe are, without a doubt, Russian Orthodox Christians, but most of them are not Russian (many are French), and they do not "belong" to the Russian Orthodox Church. It's the same for many organisations in North America. It is even more the case with the term Greek Orthodox Christians, which goes way beyond the borders of Greece and the authority of the Church of Greece. Place Clichy (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Place Clichy: While your comments are true, they are problematic in the category system because that concept falls outside of both the parent categories: Category:Russian Orthodox Church and Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by jurisdiction (as such people are neither part of that church or subject to a particular jurisdiction). Your concept sounds more like Category:Adherents of Russian Orthodox Christianity, which may be a better way to go. SFB 11:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Place Clichy: I agree with what you say. It seems Marcocapelle has (at most) scanty notions of the subject at hand, hence his uninformed (and often hasty) comments. “Russian Orthodox” doesn’t mean something “simple” (not to say simplistic!) along the lines of “Ethnic Russian of Eastern Orthodox persuasion living within the borders of the Russian Federation in the year 2014”. (??). “Russian Orthodox” means mainstream Eastern Orthodox Christian (in the cultural sense) of Slavonic-Byzantine tradition: it goes well beyond the purely “ethnic” and simplistically “theological” to encompass a wealth of subtle, nuanced liturgical, musical, aesthetic and literary notions. Once again, time-tested existing categories shouldn’t be “redefined” or “simplified” brutally and arbitrarily. This deliberate dumbing down of Wikipedia is deplorable. B.Andersohn (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per PC. This would have to be split out according to the specific churches; "Russian Orthodox Church" would have to specifically mean the church which is in Russia itself. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other ethnically Russian, Orthodox church, Category:Orthodox Church in America has it's own tree so I don't think that's an issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems obvious that members of ROCOR should be categorized as members of ROCOR, and not as non-Russian members of the Russian church. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename/Mildly Opposed to Split]]: Renaming to Category:Members of the Russian Orthodox Church makes perfect sense. I'm not at all convinced of the value of Category:Russian members of the Russian Orthodox Church though.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. Oppose split. “There's [sic] two problems at stake here, namely 1) confusion and 2) overlap.” Apart from the shaky syntax… 2) partial overlap isn’t “a problem” (??): in both Slavonic-Byzantine Canon Law and Eastern European cultural tradition(s), the overlap has existed for well over 1,000 years… Frankly, I don’t see why/how an overzealous “simplificator” with no basic training whatsoever in Byzantine theology or Slavic studies can suddenly & arbitrarily decide to delete existing categories, just like that, on a whim… 1) re: “confusion”, I think we’re touching the crux of the matter at hand: namely that issues related to Second Temple Hellenistic Judaism, Byzantine, Greco-Levantine and Russo-Orthodox traditions and categorizations are by definition “Byzantine” i.e. “v. subtle” , “arcane”, “complex” and often difficult to understand for the untrained layman. With all due respect for Marco and GO’F, this doesn’t mean they deserve to be “redefined” or “simplified” brutally and arbitrarily. This deliberate dumbing down of Wikipedia is deplorable. B.Andersohn (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Problem N°1 w/ Nomination Rationale. There are many historic, cultural-anthropological and methodological inconsistencies here (see my rationale for opposing it, PlacedeClichy’s learned comments…etc.). An additional problem relates to the faulty perception of Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Russia which does not necessarily “relate to Russian nationality” (??)
In the Russian Federation itself, there are many non-Russian/non-Slavic national groups who are nonetheless wholly “Russian Orthodox” e.g. numerous Fino-Ungric, Alan, and Mongol ethnic groups in Southern Russia and Central and Eastern Siberia → further contradicts the narrow/shallow “ethnic” categorization B.Andersohn (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Problem N°2 w/ Nomination Rationale. There are many significant examples showing the inconsistency of such a Manichean excessively ethnic & sketchily “geographic” rationale. Take e.g. 1 Gustav Fabergé, a German-Prussian jeweller of French-Calvinist Protestant persuasion who yet considered himself to be “Russian Orthodox” from a purely cultural/aesthetic perspective or e.g. 2 Paul Morand, one of the most acclaimed 20th C. French writers, and avowed atheist, who said he felt “Russian Orthodox” nonetheless because of his wife (who was Romanian = neither Russian nor Slavic for that matter) and also because he liked the soothing architectural qualities of Italy’s ancient Greco-Byzantine churches and cemeteries (for purely aesthetic reasons) or e.g. 3 Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, an American theologian of Greek-Orthodox Levantine descent who was yet viewed by many of his Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Slavic and Russian-Alaskan peers as “a Russian Orthodox preacher from Turkey”. . . . etc. There are literally hundreds of such examples showing that a thin “ethnic” and “geographic” (using simplistically 21st C. borders to describe v. ancient, nuanced ethno-cultural phenomena) or purely “religious” (in the narrow & exclusive theological sense) conceptual chainsaws to “carve out” subtle ethno-cultural notions doesn’t make any sense. B.Andersohn (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Do you support the "adherents" naming? A main aim of your nomination was to strip away the Russian national aspect from the naming and I see the adherents form as the only logical way to do that here without changing the scope of the category. SFB 02:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I would not oppose a separate adherents category next to a members category, provided there's enough content. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, after closing this discussion, an additional (side) argument in favor of the nomination is C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Members of the Russian Orthodox Church without attempts to split by nation of allegiance/country of residence. What we are trying to delinate here is those who are part of the Russian Orthodox Church, as opposed to those in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Estonian Orthodox Church and so on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since all the other similar categories were renamed here to a format the same as the proposal here, it would be awfully strange for this one not to be renamed in isolation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2015 (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:Bohemian racewalkers[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 to Category:Bohemian athletes and to Category:Czech racewalkers. – Fayenatic London 10:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bohemian track and field athletes had a very short history, which mostly consisted of 18 athletes at 3 Olympics. The sole person in this category (Rudolf Richter) is the only recorded instance of a Bohemian racewalker. It makes much more sense to avoid such narrow "by event" groupings and keep the small article base (currently 9) within the confines of a main "athletes" grouping. SFB 13:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the bigger scheme of racewalkers by country. Cuba and Bulgaria (to name just two) currently only have one racewalker at the Olympics. Should those be deleted too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • These two countries still exist and thus have potential for growth. There are several modern, international racewalkers from Cuba and Bulgaria that could have articles already. Bohemia will likely only ever have one.SFB 07:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point. See WP:SMALLCAT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I have seen that point and don't agree with it. I think narrow content in broad national trees is more easily located in the parents (i.e. Category:Racewalkers and Category:Bohemian athletes here). I don't think the additional small categories are a useful navigational aid. Also, I specifically disagree with it on the basis of athletics being the main sport and racewalking being a subsection of that. For comparison, we don't encourage creation of all national categories for the positions in team sports, e.g. Category:North Korean ice hockey forwards. If we accept a sport's sub-position as a necessary wide tree, then why not give the actual event and use Category:Bohemian men's 10 kilometre racewalkers? SFB 18:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what if we don't sub-divide hockey? We do sub-divide athletics. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SMALLCAT and the exception suggested by Lugnuts doesn't persuade me - or we would have no end of flora, fauna, populated places, and every other sort of category by former country, divvied down to the last rung. We can start by add categories like Category:Fauna of Mercia and other former countries now occupied by England to the members of Category:Fauna of England; anyone game? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about plants here. It might not persuade you, but WP:SMALLCAT is well established piece of guidance. We don't re-write history because an historical place no longer exists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Czech equivalent, since Bohemia is part of Czech Republic, ensuring that a race-walkers category is retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (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:Reform movement in Judaism[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 consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A problematic category copied from Hebrew wikipedia under the name "Reform in Judaism" and renamed since. The parent article, Reform movement in Judaism, is troublesome in itself. It implies that all non-Orthodox forms of Judaism rose from "a Reform Movement" which is distinct from Reform Judaism, yet the historian who coined the term, Michael A. Meyer, himself wrote that he authored a history of Reform and Conservative Judaism etc. are there "principally to provide contrast." (the full quote is in the lead paragraph of the parent article). Reconstructionist Judaism is unrelated, much too late and barely appears in the book. Therefore, I request merging the categories.AddMore (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need further clarification. If I understand the rationale correctly, Reform Judaism is one movement within multiple Reform movement(s) in Judaism, but I may well have understood wrongly because if that were the case it would make more sense to populate the nominated category instead of merging it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, my rationale was incoherent. The problem is that "The Reform Movement in Judaism" basically equals Reform Judaism. I'll handle with the article later. Other non-Orthodox currents are not really related. Please check the quote in the opening paragraph of the first article.AddMore (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2014 (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:Defunct prisons in Anglesey[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. Will be processed as a delete by the bot since the articles were dual upmerged. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Unnecessarily exact categorisation which will only ever have the possibility of having one, or very occasionally two, appropriate articles (per WP:SMALLCAT). Sionk (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Defunct prisons in..." categories are upmerged and deleted, I'd nominate the "Prisons in..." categories for similar upmerge to the Wales parent cat. Sionk (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (which I might well support) you would need an upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Swansea etc as well as to Category:Prisons in Wales. Oculi (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though they should already be in the appropriate non-prison category, while Category:Defunct prisons in Wales is already a sub-category of Category:Prisons in Wales. Sionk (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiff Gaol is not in any other subcat of Category:Buildings and structures in Cardiff so a double upmerge is required. Oculi (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all these categories are a navigational detriment, as they would benefit from being in the Wales category (the lowest location level that a group of shared articles can be created. SFB 11:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all' -- there cannot be enough to merit this intersection surviving, but we also need to merge also to "Buildings and structures in foo". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double upmerge, also to the other parent "Prisons in Foo". If the nominator intends that the small categories for Prisons in (county) should be deleted, then they should be tagged and added to the nomination. It seems disingenuous to empty them by a one-sided merger nomination, even though their fate is discussed above. Note that there is a similar nomination for English prisons at CFD Dec 16. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That begins to get too confusing for my tiny mind, but don't let me stop you if you want to nominate them separately ;) Merging the "Prisons in FOO" categories is certainly something I would consider, following the outcome of this CfD. Sionk (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • upmerge both defunct and active categories for Wales None of the "prisons in Wales" has more than one or two subpages, and therefore there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for any geographical breakout. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2014 (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/2014_December_14&oldid=1074812622"