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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category, WP:NONDEF. Note: it wouldn't surprise me if sister categories would suffer from the same problem but I guess for a WP:NONDEF nomination every category needs to be judged on its own merits by checking all or at least a decent sample of articles in the category itself. So that's why it's not a group nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sermon writing is a very specific and relevant form that merits categorisation. From the subjects I checked, sermon writing and delivery formed a key part of the subject's work. Johann Arndt's published sermons formed part of his Lutheran theological work and Jesper Brochmand's sermons are a key part of his legacy. I'm not sure how you came to the above conclusion that this is non-defining. Also, dividing these by denomination may actually be a more relevant choice than nationality (which is chosen for other parts of the tree). SFB 21:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got two types of replies here, the first one reply is a more general comment. Being a Lutheran pastor/priest is the real defining characteristic of the persons in this category, while sermon writing is just part of their activities of a Lutheran pastor/priest. Having a category 'sermon writers' as a child of clergy would be similar to having a category 'paint users' as a child category of painters. The issue is actually not about the writing of sermons but about the publication of sermons which can have been done by the person himself or after his/her death. In any case I really wouldn't consider a publication of sermons to be defining for any pastor/priest.
The more detailed answer is by analyzing all the articles in the category, which IMHO also confirms that sermon writing is not a defining characteristic:
Arndt: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, no separate publication of sermons, brief mentioning that some of his sermons were included in a wider collection of sermons
Brochmand: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, mentioning that one publication of sermons was popular for two decades in the 17th century
Chemnitz: "sermon writer" neither mentioned in header nor in body text of article, only a number of separate sermons are included in a list of works
Coleman: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Gerhard: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Habermann: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, publication of sermons briefly mentioned in body text
Harms: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, publication of 'volumes of sermons' mentioned in body text
Haugan: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Laestadius: his sermons are mentioned in the body text, but no sermons publications
Löhe: his sermons are briefly mentioned in the body text, but no sermons publications
Luther: there's no point contesting sermon writer for Luther, but it should be noted that Luther is already in so many related categories that it's questionable if adding him also to a sermon writer category adds much value
Melanchthon: same as Luther
Paul: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Pavels: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Reu: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Solorainen: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, mentioning one book of sermons being published at the very end of the body text of the article
I hope that this explanation suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining; isn't every Lutheran pastor a sermon writer? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These people are defined as theologians, bishops or pastors. They did write sermons, but there is no clear indication that they are a special class doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This (and its sister categories) have definite potential as a categorization of people who worked in the literary genre of sermons. This is different than just giving sermons, the sermon as a written literary form doesn't reflect precisely the content of a sermon as preached in Church nor are the functions of the two things the same. The category will have to be carefully maintained, however. "Being a Lutheran pastor/priest is the real defining characteristic of the persons in this category" ... we are not limited to one characteristic. Take a look at the entry for Adolf Hitler.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:52, 29 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.
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. (There has never been an RM for the article. This might be helpful if there are further issues with agreeing on a name, but judging from the reasons given for the various moves, it will probably be stable where it is now.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Categories should representative of the article title, as such this could have been speedied. Where the article should be is another question. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly that there are different opinions about the right page name it may be a good idea to wait to change the category name until the name of the article has been settled for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 25 November 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:rename to Category:History of fiction for now, recognising that more work may be needed on the contents and perhaps on the category name and purpose. – FayenaticLondon 22:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is at best a rather spurious category and contains a random selection of articles many of which are neither chronologies nor based on works of fiction Bikeroo (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bikeroo: May I please respectfully invite you to nominate any article of your choice which I have included in this category, and I will point out why it's related to works of fiction, and where the chronological section lies in the article. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I have an idea of what the editor is trying to do (though I could be wrong) but a category like this is not going to accomplish it. Also determining a chronology for fictional characters is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at best. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: No, I am not try to determine a chronology for fictional characters, but a chronology of fictional lore. Such chronologies in fact, contain neither original research, nor do they attempt to reach a conclusion which is not explicitly stated by the sources. The sources, by the way, are the works of fiction in themselves, be they books, films, or other types of fictional material. Also, please note that I had already initiated a proposal to rename the category Chronologies of Works of Fiction, so as to make clear that this category is not for fictitious works, but for works of fiction that truly exist. Joe Gatt (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that doesn't clear up what this cat is about at all. I will note that, along with the OR that I have already mentioned, this there are two more problems per WP:CATDEF - namely "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" and "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article" - As of now I cannot find any of the articles in this category meeting these guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: Just to clarify what this category is all about: This category is simply to group together all those articles that contain timelines of artistic works of fiction. There are quite a number of such Wikipedia articles, and I think that they deserve a category of their own. In fact, this need has been demonstrated from an earlier and very IMPORTANT prior discussion concerning the proposal to rename Category:Fictional timelines to Category:Chronology of Fictional Works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_21), which should clarify why this new category (and page) is sorely needed on Wikipedia, so as to DIFFERENTIATE between in-world fictional timelines, and between timelines of artistic works of fiction. I suggest that participants in this discussion view that particular discussion as well, so as to clarify what this category is meant to achieve. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion@Bikeroo:@MarnetteD:@Sillyfolkboy: The selection of articles is not at all spurious. Each article which I have included in the category, contains a section detailing the output of fictional works. You may wish to nominate any article of your choice which I have included in the category, and I will point out to you where the chronological section is. The point of this category came about, from the discussion which has just taken place, concerning Propose renamingCategory:Fictional timelines to Category:Chronology of Fictional Works. I do not wish to repeat the whole discussion over here, but therein it was stated that : I don't think anyone is advocating not having a category to cover Category:Timelines of publications, but I do think it's a good idea to make it absolutely clear if the timeline we are covering is fictional or if it is a timeline of artistic works. SFB 02:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Thus I am now a bit shocked that I find that some Wikipedians are actually advocating NOT having a category to cover such chronologies of fictional work. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something I mentioned in the connected nomination that this title was problematic and did not clarify the scope. It looks like this discussion has driven that home! I don't think it's helpful to split the conversation. FYI User:Joe Gatt: we try to avoid creating categories mid-nomination like this to avoid all the hot air. It's best to let the discussion take its course to see the way forward. SFB 01:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: Sorry about the confusion, I neither intended it, nor did I forsee it. Following your suggestion, may I please propose renaming the category to History of fictional lore? Joe Gatt (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a large portion of the articles categorized should probably not be categorized there. Just because the list is in chronological order does not make it a chronology. Just because an article contains a history of a subject does not make it a chronology. And a list of things from a certain period is not a chronology. If we allowed lists of fictional things of a certain topic that is ordered chronologically into this category, it is redundant to categories for lists of works by topic. This this should be restricted to lists of works by release history per fictional universe. Under those conditions, zero articles in the current category qualify for categorization. Category:Release chronologies for works of fiction would be the name. The other category that exists Category:Fictional timelines already handles in-universe ordering of events. Thus publication order is the only reason for this category to exist, instead of in-universe order. (An example of what should be categorized here, is Publication history of DC Comics crossover events, which is the publication history, by real-world dates, of one fictional universe (DC Comics) ) What should not be here is Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, which is just a list of an author's publications, which is usually in chronological order, and which if they author writes only fiction does not need special categorization outside of list of writer publications. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Films are also stenciled in with 2015 release dates. That article is still about the publication history, and not in-universe history. Go to any book publisher, you'll see release dates for 2015 as well. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think that categories for lists of works by topic, because of their inherent affinity, should be grouped together as sub-categories within Category:Chronology of Fictional Works (or whatever it could be renamed to), provided that such lists are ordered chronologically. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunerstanding me. I'm saying that if "Chronology of Fictional Works" were to duplicate lists of works by topic, then there is no need for a category "Chronology of Fictional Works"; we would only need such a category if it were different from the existing category tree. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: Maybe you could provide concrete exemplars of such categories of lists of works by topic, such that I can better follow your line of reasoning, please ? Joe Gatt (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44:@Mark Marathon:@Lenticel: Categories such as Category:Lists of media, and Category:Lists of novels, are so broad that they serve no clear purpose. It seems that they incorporate every single media item, and every single novel, that was ever made, and what is the point of that? Please note Section 1.7 of this very log page, where the category Category:Honey plants was nominated for deletion precisely because likewise it was deemed as just too broad. On the other hand, Category:Chronology of Fictional Works has more definition because it is intended to cater for specific concepts, themes and ideas within fiction. Joe Gatt (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: Hi! I have looked at the lists of works by topic category tree more closely, and I think that I can understand the point now, which is, to have a category for lists (rather than for every single publication). Nonetheless, I have observed something in this category tree which, to my mind, is unharmonious, and consequentially, disconcerting, namely : some lists are chronological (like my category), some lists are ordered alphabetically by author, some are ordered alphabetically by title of work, and some lists even have no inherent order ! At least my category seeks to delineate the type of order (namely chronological) of the lists within it. Joe Gatt (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suggestion that this category should be restricted to lists of works by release history per fictional universe. At the very least, such a restriction would exclude all semi-fictional narratives, given that these do not take place within a fictional universe, but in the real world. Additionally, such lists of works by release history per fictional universe, tend to be nothing more than publication histories, and progress hand in hand with a given fictional storyline within a given fictional universe. Whereas the intention for this category was to cater for the chronology/evolution/timeline of fictional concepts, themes and ideas, such as the theme of World War I or World War II, for example. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, I do NOT oppose having a separate category that is restricted to lists of works by release history per fictional universe. Joe Gatt (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename to "History of Fictional Foo" or something. This category is very confusing unless a main article is set up to explain what's in here. At first glance I thought it contained the timelines of fictional works like the timeline of Narnia or that of LOTR. --Lenticel(talk) 00:40, 1 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.
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:WP:TVINTL says that "Shows should be categorized by original broadcasters but not by other ones"; this category has been inconsistently applied both to original Cartoon Network series, and any other networks' series which have ever been repeated there (and it does seem to be a network that buys in a lot of old cartoons from other countries). Adding the word "original" (as is the case in, eg. Category:Adult Swim original programs) makes the category scope clearer for both readers and editors. McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I now realise this is reversing a category move from 2011 by an editor who wished to see all acquisitions included. The discussion had two in favour and two non-commital "I understand it's not meant to work like this" comments. The WP:TVINTL line about articles being "categorized by original broadcasters" may well post-date that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The category name has for a long time been inconsistent with the category description, which reads "This is for shows that have regularly aired their first-run episodes on the regular Cartoon Network schedule." The vagueness has encouraged fans to add everything that has ever aired on Cartoon Network--including reruns of ancient series and shows that are broadcast internationally--to this cat. It might even be worth discussing whether we want to further specify that these are Cartoon Network original Programs (U.S.), per the cat description. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and adjust contents where necessary. Categorising tv programmes by broadcaster is not suitable as most programmes will have many broadcasters (particularly when you account for international audiences). Categorising by the producer/originals is much more effective as there will usually only be one and the gathered contents will have much greater relevance to each other. SFB 18:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as someone who worked at Hanna Barbera in the 90s and was part of producing the first original programs for CN, I think this is a good distinction. Bear in mind that over the history of the network, initially everything aired was rehashed material with Ted Turner buying Hanna Barbera in the early 90s with the intention of using its massive archive of finished animation to get CN going. It took a while before (and quite a few failed attempts) before things got going with new content. Then in the late 90s, after the Time-Warner buyout of Turner Broadcasting and Warner Bros. Animation took control of HB, is when production of shows got "off track" and Cartoon Network Studios was founded in nearby Burbank out of frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs)
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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that there are projects aiming to create mutants for every single gene in the mouse genome, there is not much sense in having this as a separate category. Randykitty (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those projects are some significant distance away from creating mutants for every single gene; I'd estimate less than 20% of all mouse genes have currently been knocked out. I think eventually these cats should be merged, but at the moment there are significant differences in the articles that are (and should be) in each. Though both are currently very underpopulated. Rockpocket 12:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: there are very few mouse genes for which no mutations are known. And some of the genes we now have in "mouse genes" have been knocked out (Fmr1 several times, for example). The difference is completely artificial. If you really want to make a difference, it should be between genes that are monomorphic in nature and those for which natural mutations are known. That's a difference that means something. But in a few years we'll have induced mutations for all mouse genes, so why make the distinction... --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The contents are broadly not mouse-specific genes. Myostatin, MYO7A, NSUN2: these are genes found in many animals so it does not make sense to categorise them just as mouse genes (otherwise we could end up with thousands of per-animal categories on each of these pages). The current category name accurately reflects the relevance that mice have to the corpus of knowledge. A better flow of the nomination's logic would be an upmerge to Category:Mutated genes anyway. SFB 18:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that categorizing genes by species does not make much sense, so perhaps the whole gene categorization tree needs overhaul. As for a category "mutated genes", I think that the same logic I applied above to "mutated mouse genes" applies and don't find "mutated" very defining for any gene. Any gene will mutate, so if you look long and hard enough, each and every gene from each and every organism will eventually fall into that category. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the parent categories only contain six or eight pages, while this one has 250, so it appears to be useful for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 22:42, 23 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.
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category contains articles about the islands that were the subject of this treaty between the U.S. and Kiribati. Essentially, it's categorizing the islands because they were the subject of the treaty, which is an unusual way of categorizing geographical places. I think that this is probably overcategorization; the information is already contained in Treaty of Tarawa. As far as I know, there's nothing else that could be placed in this category to make it worthwhile. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The categories sole purpose is to group the title article and the islands affected by that treaty, but these places are sufficiently covered by Category:Islands of Kiribati. There is no precedence for grouping places under a treaty - such categories are only used to group related material (e.g. Category:Louisiana Purchase does not contain Louisiana). SFB 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per SFB's argument. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Lenticel(talk) 01:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SFB. Also per WP:CATDEF the treaty is not a defining characteristic of the islands. MarnetteD|Talk 02:17, 28 November 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:Delete. This category has no clear purpose. It seems that it should include virtually every flowering plant in the planet, since they almost all produce honey. It might be useful if it included only commercially important species, but since we've had editors try to add the entire 1,500+ species in the genus Acacia and the entire 4,000+ species in the Ericaceae it seems like it isn't that restrcited, which is also what's suggested by the title. I brought this up on the category talk page several months ago and the Beekeeping task force talk page, and nobody has responded. So it doesn't look like the article gets much attention anyway.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-defining. It might be best to delete this cat and focus on improving List of honey plants. At least we can add refs in the article.--Lenticel(talk) 01:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining - virtually any plant pollinated by bees would be included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:32, 1 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.
