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:merged. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given it's own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per past consensus such as this and others. GiantSnowman 09:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We should not categorise them by age: in two years' time the under 17s will be under 19. However, I would question whehter we should be categorising youth team players (even at natioanl level) at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —dainomite 05:28, 30 May 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.
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:Religious philosophers and also to the other parent to Category:American philosophers, as nobody has give a reason to remove them from that hierarchy. It is inaccurate and unhelpful to opine "delete per nom" where the nomination was for merger, and where merger is desired. – FayenaticLondon 22:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to divide this category by nationality. It is better to divide it by religion, as is already done in the parent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking over the articles, some of the individuals are better placed in Category:Philosophers of religion as religion is a noun (defining the field of study), not an adjective (describing the beliefs of the individual). LizRead!Talk! 19:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, "Religious philosophers" are not "Philosophers of religion" and vice versa. Philosophy of religion involves using logic and reasoning to analyze religion. That analysis is not religious in nature. In fact most philosophers of religion are atheists. Greg Bard (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
deleteCategory:Religious philosophers is already a problem since it really means Category:Philosophers by religion, as can be seen by its subcats. I see one person who would thereby fall into a Quaker subcat (which does not yet exist) but the others don't seem to fall into some sort of religious affiliation. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
neutral I would support the choice suggested by Liz; that list seems to be growing, however, so a subdivision of that category by nationality might be helpful. Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dainomite 05:29, 30 May 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.
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: At multi-sport events the contests are first grouped by sport (e.g. Rowing) and the events themselves are considered part of that sport's programme. The structure of the sub-categories currently reflects this. The current wording is less that ideal: "events" is potentially ambiguous and could encompass the non-competitive aspects of these festivals. A change to "sports" removes this ambiguity and aligns with real-world usage. Bringing the "sports" modifier to the start of the category name emphasises that the category is about activities within the games and not exploring the sports themselves more generally (e.g. the scope of Asian Games sports). SFB 17:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not only does it reduce ambiguity, it's also (at least in my opinion) much more aesthetically pleasant to read, especially for the MSEs that end in "Games". See no reason to keep the "events" naming structure. SellymeTalk 23:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those year categories will be subject to this change too. I stuck with the top level categories as I didn't want to spend my time tagging hundreds of categories for a nomination that may garner valid opposition. SFB 10:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to abbreviate the "Olympic/Paralympic Games" titles to just "Olympics/Paralympics" (Youth ones included). I don't agree with the use of "former" in our current category at Category:Former Summer Olympic events. Former usually implies that the idea has been continued in another form (e.g. former states, former Christians). This makes sense for Category:Former Summer Olympic sports. However, the contents of the "Sports at X" categories are not "former sports" – the sense we're looking for is more like defunct. For these I propose we use Category:Discontinued sports at the Summer Olympics, which reflects how the IOC classifies its Olympic sports. I will propose these "former" categories in a subsequent nomination if that's OK, as they have not been a key part of the discussion until now. SFB 18:06, 3 June 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.
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 - Which in XFD parlance means: "Default to keep". So that means the depopulated categories may be populated ("re-"populated, as the case may be), at editor discretion. But this also means that these categories may be re-nominated. (And yes I did read the previous, though apparently withdrawn, nomination.) One thing that struck me as I was investigating the categories for this close, was that the pages Comprehensive school and Comprehensive school (England and Wales) appear to be in need of citation/referencing. And as any reader of WP:CAT should be aware, since categories cannot have references themselves due to technical restrictions, related articles should provide such references (while of course, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, so we give the benefit of the doubt that such references may exist, but might not yet be added to said articles). For any future nomination, a discussion of references (or lack thereof) would probably be a decent place to start, I would think. - jc37 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have not tagged/listed the sub-cats in London, Manchester or Merseyside, nor listed all the deleted Comprehensive sub-sub-cats of Category:Secondary schools in England, but I trust that this is sufficient to hold the discussion required. – FayenaticLondon 15:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate - I am in the UK and it is my opinion that nearly all the state schools (except grammar schools) remain comprehensive: non-selective secondary schools. An academy is still a comprehensive school unless it is selective. Oculi (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Academies are only allowed to select up to 10% of their intake, the same as specialist schools and free schools. I believe these all generally describe themselves as comprehensive – not merely "occasionally" as stated by Bleaney below. There are also a small number listed at Partially selective school (England), some of which select more. – FayenaticLondon 21:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost all secondary schools in England purport to have a comprehensive intake, so therefore I do not think this is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. The convention on here any way has been for only LA maintained schools to be in the comprehensive categories, while academies (the most common form of secondary school in England now), free schools & city technology colleges are not (even though they too occasionally claim a 'comprehensive' intake). The few grammar schools that are left have their own categories, and I dont think they need comprehensive categories as a juxtaposition. Also, the entire concept of 'Comprehensive schools' has been debased over the last 10 or years ago,what with specialist schools etc. Please see Comprehensive school (England and Wales)#Current status. Any schools in these categories should be changed to the corresponding secondary schools category for their local area. - Bleaney (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the ultimate result of this CFD, but just so we're clear, that change should not be made while this discussion is open. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to equivalent secondary schools (or perhaps secondary state schools) categories. The exception might be the small number of counties etc. that have retained the grammar/secondary modern split. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caution I have just cottoned on to this thread which seems to be a duplicate to a failed attempt to force through change in GM (I repeat for the sake of tidyness)- I advise extreme caution as any deletion in this area can be seen as a political act. The fact that Trafford failed to implement government directive 11/66 and 10/68 which made it a duty to scrap selection by ability at eleven- maintaining Secondary modern schools and grammar schools make this a political act. Deleting either of these cats is a political judgement which breaks WP:NPOV. To keep these cats in Trafford- while deleting the comprehensives in Stockport cat- is a nonsense and again breaches WP:NPOV.
Looking at the cat Secondary schools in Stockport - I see Stockport Grammar School has not been listed- but it is a private secondary school- though selective, and thus not a comprehensive. Again WP:NPOV. The list in the secondary schools cat, is actually the list that should be in the comprehensive school cat. Unless there is another factor- I see reversion is the correct thing to do, making secondary schools in a parent cat. In other parts of England things are not so sensitive- in Kent, Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Essex they are! Agree Keep and repopulate
By the nature of the 1944 compromise and internal Conservative Party politics-there are as many systems of education as their are counties- you can spend a whole teaching career in some regions unaware that the term comprehensive (normal secondary school) does not have the same meaning (educational or political) in the front line counties. Bring into the mix that all Roman Catholic (VA) schools were instructed to go comprehensive- in the counties that maintained secondary moderns/grammar- or comprehensive /super selectives- we had a system of Grammar/Kent High Schools/Bi-lateral/Wide ability/Comprehensive/Special/Faith Comprehensives VA and VC: at one time in Kent alone.
I caution about the good faith intention of 'tidying up' this seemingly illogical mess as it faithfully represents illogical reality. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:09, 3 June 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:Top sixteen professional snooker players[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. – FayenaticLondon 10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Arbitrary criterion. While I tend to watch important snooker matches, the official ranking lists players beyond the number 16 as well and doesn't seem to outline that number somehow. Besides, the category may be backlogged, requiring regular checks for updates. Brandmeistertalk 10:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as arbitrary. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary, trivial, and not useful.- MrX 11:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is not completely arbitrary, since (at least at one period) only 16 players played the professional circuit in a four round tournament. However the category would need to be for players who have been in the top 16, which may produce a category of 50 or 100 people, not the currnet top 16. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 8 May 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.
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 the 2 articles into Category:Philosophy of religion (by all means re-categorise them if this is not the best match), and remove the sub-cats, which are religions. – FayenaticLondon 20:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency. This is a category for theories propagated by various religions. All of the sibling categories under Category:Theories are "Foo theories." Most of the sibling categories under Category:Religious philosophy are "Religious bar;" there are some other "Bar of religion," but in all other cases it is for subjects about religion, this is the only case of a subject under the banner of religion. Andrewaskew (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose rename but... Delete none of its current subcats should be members. "Theory of religion" as a term has a far larger footprint in the literature than "religious theory", I imagine because the two are understood to be different in the same way that philosophy of religion and "religious philosophy" are understood to be different. That said, the subcats are all religions, and there are only two direct members, one of which I think doesn't belong either. If pruned at present the category would be too small to keep. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main article of each of those subcategories should be members of this category. Greg Bard (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No they shouldn't, because they are all members of Category:Religions (at least they should be). Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is to place "Religious movements, faiths, traditions" under Category:Theories. Not all theories have a movement behind them. (As I have explained elsewhere in this discussion.) Greg Bard (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, this is your own idiosyncratic position, and really only is plausible in the borderline tautological sense in which all ideas can be called "theories". I don't see how you're going to be able to justify anything stronger without presuppositions about the nature of religions that are hardly neutral. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed/Indifferently Support - Listen folks, I created this category, and I'm not really opposed to this proposal. However, I have been endlessly frustrated by periodic issues that arise due to people who have never studied philosophy of religion, and never studied logic (so as to know what a "theory" is), etcetera. The purpose of this category is to identify theories (i.e. collections of concepts, expressed as sentences, all of which attempt to explain a certain phenomenon, etcetera) that depend on the belief in a religion, or at the very least depend on some non-empirical and non-logical claim (i.e. faith). We also have "metatheories of religion", and those are different. We recently had an article rename, which was, IMO, very inappropriate, and has confused the issue completely. But because we have people who don't know what a "metatheory" is they have insisted on renaming it to conform to their limited understanding. (Sorry for the rant). My main concern is classifying all articles which are theories appropriately. Theories which depend on religious beliefs should be conspicuously distinguished from scholarly, and academic theories which conform to the methodology used by responsible philosophers (i.e. logic, reason, self-evident principles, consistent with science, etcetera). Greg Bard (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question what is the difference in scope of this category and Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements? While I understand that the philosophical concepts are approached differently, if the article scope completely overlaps than I think this can just be redirected. SFB 17:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate concern is to classify under the Category:Fundamental categories. So with that goal in mind, we need to recognize that we are dealing with collections of concepts known as "theories." A theory doesn't necessarily have a movement associated with it, so this is a more general classification. If we were to just put the "movements" categories under theories, then we would be in the position of having to exclude a lot of theories which do not have any movement behind them, but nevertheless, are religious theories. Greg Bard (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the current contents are misleading, but I'm struggling to why the Theories of religion category exists as it does. The statement of the scope ("This category is for theories whose theorems include some statement of belief in some religion.") doesn't seem to be supported by the real world corpus, which in contrast mostly uses this phrase to address what we cover in Category:Metatheory of religion and Theories about religions. I disagree with the rename, but as it stands I actually lean towards deletion on the basis that interpretations of the category name are multiple. SFB 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the premise of the category is false – the defined scope does not match up with either layman's or subject specialist usage. SFB 19:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its a little embarrassing to have to explain, but yes, all religions are theories. No one from within any religion ever likes to admit that, because they don't like the idea that, in popular culture, people use the word "theory" to mean "unsure" or "not fact." That's a misuse of the word theory. The word theory as it is being used here is the correct use, as is the description of religions as theories. You also don't seem to get that atheism and deism are metatheories of religion. They are theories whose subject matter are questions about religion. Greg Bard (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am the only main author of the article theory of religion. And if you read it carefully then there is only one theory of religion (by Frazer) that says that religions are theories about the (invisible) world. All the other theories of religions do not state that religions are theories. I explained that to you before and I do not understand why you do not understand. Or why you do not agree. So no, metatheories of religions is a wrong title for the article. Andries (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google "theory of religion" and you get sociological theories of religion, evolutionary theories, economic theories, Freud, Marx, Eliade, etc.. ("Religious theory" gets largely the same results, except for a few discussions of "religious theory of evolution"). You can find people saying, "Christianity is the theory that Jesus is the son of God", or something like that, but mostly not in academic writing, usually this is amateurs arguing about evolution or something. Theory has a different meaning in the social sciences and the humanities, than it does in the hard sciences, mathematics, and analytical philosophy. Scholars of religion often come from the former set of disciplines: i.e. religious studies, sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, etc. The definition you seem to be using is from theory (mathematical logic) but people outside the field of mathematical logic and related disciplines are not likely to be familiar with it. 71.58.95.36 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Theories of religion are NOT Category:Religious theories and I'm not sure there is anything that can be properly called a "religious theory". Perhaps you are thinking of religious philosophy or religious belief systems but they are not composed of "theories" which is a terminology typically used in the natural and physical sciences.
As @71 says, there are subdisciplines called Category:Philosophy of religion, Category:Psychology of religion, Category:Anthropology of religion and Category:Sociology of religion that include theories of religion but these theories are not specific to one religious belief system, they consider how aspects of religion such as how religion functions to pass on traditions or as a coherent philosophical system or as a evolving set of rituals. Right now, this understanding of theories of religion is not how the category is being used. It is a valid category but it is being misapplied. LizRead!Talk! 19:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (but purge) or delete -- We have two articles which seem to be schools (theories) of religious philosophy. Category:Philosophy of religion would be an appropriate target to merge the articles into. The present subcats are religions, not theories and should be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, philosophy of religion is primarily about using accepted scholarly and academic philosophical methodology (i.e. logic and reason) to analyze religious belief. Logic and reason doesn't support any religious belief, so no, it would not be appropriate to classify any of those under philosophy of religion. This is why this category is needed, to keep scholarly and academic philosophy separate from religious belief. Greg Bard (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not seeing this. Whatever you think about what religions are, there's no reason to duplicate Category:Religions. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "race" isn't a theory, its a single concept. The idea here is to properly classify theories. Greg Bard (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Greg Bard, it seems that nobody (including myself) understands what you mean by a theory of religion. Can you give a few examples of these theories? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is sufficient. CfD is for Discussion, and any outcome may result from discussion of any proposal. – FayenaticLondon 13:29, 3 June 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:American Association of State Colleges and Universities[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:purge and add criteria. (As a mechanism to use a bot, I will delete it, then undelete it, reinstate the Wikidata link if necessary, and add the 5 pages listed.) – FayenaticLondon 19:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
or delete and check whether any of the few articles that are not about member institutions should be upmerged.
Nom adjusted in response to comments below. DexDor 04:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains 455 items (pages/subcats) of which only 5 (at most, AFAICS) are really about the AASCU. The remaining 450 are about colleges/universities that are members of the AASCU which is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a college/university. The 5 articles are 12345.
I thus propose that this category be deleted and then recreated containing just those 5 articles. Alternatives include creating a subcategory for members of the AASCU, moving articles down to that category and then CFDing that category - however, that would be more work and hit the watchlists of a lot of articles twice.
Delete -- We should not be categorising univeirsities by their membership of an association. I am dubious whether we need the re-created category for AASCU, and its membership list and initiatives. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though probably unintentional, this nomination as worded just seems confused about how categories work, not to mention CFD. Categories are added or removed just by editing the articles themselves, and category criteria can be changed by making the category description page clear on that point (e.g., "Member universities are not to be included"). We don't "delete" and then "recreate" a category just to remove certain articles from it, nor is CFD used when the only desired outcome is changing a category's contents, and I don't think I've ever even seen that proposed before. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some editors who would say a proposal to drastically redefine (excluding 99% of the current members) a category should be discussed at CFD (rather than just on the category's talk page). Using a bot to remove the category tags would take less editor time than manually editting 450 pages, but I take the point that it shouldn't actually be necessary to delete the category to do this so I've adjusted the nom. DexDor (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFD is for deleting, renaming, or merging categories—edits that would actually fundamentally alter the category page itself (and not just by rewriting the description). While you're correct as a matter of good practice that mass-category edits should probably be discussed somewhere first rather than done unilaterally just in case they prove controversial, you'd do better to use a forum that is relevant to the category's topic so those who might actually know something about it (or are just interested in the outcome) can given an informed opinion as to the significance of this category for the member schools. Otherwise, there's nothing special about CFD that makes it easier to (nearly) empty a category, nor are admin tools necessary to do that; AWB makes that a quick task even with hundreds of articles. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 9 May 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.
