Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

Category:Raja Rao Award Winners[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. MER-C 09:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2A Vycl1994 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2019 (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:Christianity in Kievan Rus'[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: disperse then delete. MER-C 10:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually disperse content, the two biographies and two articles about church buildings do not belong in a history of religion category like this, so it becomes a matter of WP:SMALLCAT. The three remaining articles can be added to (some of) the parent categories, or to more specific subcategories of them. Disclosure: I have created this category myself in the beginning of the year, while moving the biographies and articles about church buildings from Category:History of Christianity in Ukraine to Category:Christianity in Kievan Rus'; but in retrospect I had better purged Category:History of Christianity in Ukraine immediately. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have an article, there is not enough clearly belong content to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse then delete -- I doubt we will ever get enough to merit this category or the speedy move proposal to Chistianization … Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2019 (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:Medieval Moscow[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Category:Medieval Moscow

Category:Geography of Bradford[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Category:Geography of Bradford

Category:Arctic flora[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 10:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency e.g. with Category:Flora of the Pacific and Category:Fauna of the Arctic. DexDor (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2019 (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:Gannett (company)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Category:Gannett (company)

Category:New Jersey Knights 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: rename. MER-C 10:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination; option A was opposed on Speedy page. Team used the name Jersey Knights for half a season, not New Jersey Knights. Alternatively, follow article name New York Golden Blades. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy nomination
Of the two options presented here, I suggest OPTION A. While the team rebranded as the New York Golden Blades midseason, there will be some players who only played for one or the other iteration of the team, so merging into Category:New York Golden Blades players as proposed in OPTION B would not be wholly accurate. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A By standard the hockey project splits categories for players when name changes happen. As a player who played for the team while they were the Jersey Knights but was traded before they were the Golden Blades for example would be miscategorized if they were in a category named the for the Golden Blades. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A as per above comment. Do not merge. Flibirigit (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent suggests Option B -- This is cognate with the alumni of a merged or renamed college, where the alumni of the predecessor appear in that of the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2019 (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:Staff of Cranmer Hall, Durham[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: do not rename. MER-C 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other members of Category:Academics by university in England.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other members of Category:Academics by university in England.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other members of Category:Academics by university in England.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other members of Category:Academics by university in England.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other members of Category:Academics by university in England.
CfR discussion following opposed speedy nomination. The reason is consistency: almost all members of Category:Academics by university in England begin with "Academics of", these theological colleges are linked with universities and I don't believe they need different category names. The members of these categories are academics, heads and (a few) chaplains. The articles Ripon College Cuddesdon and Westcott House, Cambridge list enough people articles for fairly large "academics" and "heads" categories for both colleges. There are enough articles for Cranmer Hall, Durham and Ridley Hall, Cambridge for at least five academics and a larger number of heads. Academics of Wesley House will be too small to split. If this is agreed I will manually move any chaplains without a role as academic or head to "People associated with Foo" and all heads to "Heads of Foo". TSventon (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Question, Is "academics" unambiguous enough, wouldn't this also attract alumni? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In British English "academic" is, as a noun, unambiguously a reference to university teachers/researchers: equivalent to the American English use of "faculty". It is never used for students or alumni. As these are British institutions, then British English should be used as per MOS:ENGVAR. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as stated in the speedy discussion below, theological colleges/seminaries are not the same as universities. The staff of these colleges include chaplains, academics, administrators etc. Individuals often take multiple roles, especially in smaller colleges, and it is difficult to divide them into neat categories. These are not large, overflowing categories and so there isn't a need to separate them on that basis. They are standardised with each other as theological colleges, and I see no need to standardise them with universities (which unlike these colleges, offer their own degrees and don't have the same role confusion). In addition, Category:University and college chaplains in the United Kingdom doesn't categorise chaplains as academics (because, intrinsically, they aren't). Due to individuals holding multiple roles, successively or simultaneously, they would have to placed in multiple categories. The suggestion of placing chaplains in "People associated with Foo" rather than one of the new sub-categories would suggest that there in confusion and that they do in fact belong in a subcategory but have been wrongly categorised. In addition, WP:OCASSOC, suggests "People associated with Foo" are too vague and removes chaplains from their context as staff of these institutions and not, for example, a donor or architect of the college's building. However, as previously stated, to have multiple sub-categories would be to place individuals in a number of them resulting in over categorisation, rather than introducing specificity.
In short, the current categories are not overflowing, and the suggested categories would just introduce confusion and multiplication. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I mistakenly posted this at Speedy) Presumably I created it there for consistency with pre-existing comparable categories: the other TEIs. Because of the presence of non-academic staff (especially clergy), I would favour TEIs having Alum and Staff categories — consistency with eachother rather than with universities, with which they aren't comparable. (For instance, the academics of Westcott are all also academics of the University of Cambridge and/or Durham University.) DBD 12:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (and TSventon replied there:) **DBD, I have seen that there are arguments for a different structure for theological colleges, but on balance I prefer the general university and college structure, hence the full discussion. These categories only have a handful of chaplains so I don't think a special structure is needed to accommodate them. TSventon (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Principals too aren't necessarily academics (in recent times — e.g. I had two successive Principals when I was at theological college, and neither was a published academic; they were good teachers of their specialisms, but not "academics"). TEIs are neither universities (not able to award their own qualifications) nor usually simply colleges of a university (e.g. Ridley, Westcott, and Wesley are "associated" with Cambridge), so they often have staff members who aren't academics in the proper sense — most notably Principals or Chaplains who are employed in more pastoral roles — though some of these have taught non-academic disciplines in-house or have been academics anyway. Even the "Academics of X House, Y" aren't actually academics of that house — they are academics of the University/ies which provide the ordinands' teaching and award their degrees. Take a recent example, Jeremy Morris — while at Westcott, he will have been a "Staff of Westcott House, Cambridge", an "Academic of the University of Cambridge" (and maybe an "Academic of Anglia Polytechnic University" which then awarded Westcott's non-Cambridge degrees) but not an "Academic of Westcott..." DBD 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I suppose the proposed academics categories can be created as subcategories of the currently existing staff categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The explanation of chaplains roles in these places is key. Staff covers what we are aiming at best here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep -- I do not see why we have to make this accord with universities, whose teaching staff are expected to engage in research and to publish it. Theological colleges are frequently independent institutions that have their degrees validated by a university, which is in effect an examining authority. They used mainly to award London University degrees, as did a lot of tertiary colleges until 20-30 years ago. Can we not just leave "staff of … " as a subcat of academics by university or college? The attempt to make diverse things uniform is a bad feature of WP, probably actually a misapplication of policy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Thanks all, I think this can now be closed as there is currently no support for renaming the categories. TSventon (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2019 (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:Aikido terms and principles[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. MER-C 10:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only "... terms and principles" category in en wp. If it is thought that separating these articles from Category:Aikido is useful then it could be renamed to Category:Aikido concepts and put in Category:Concepts by field, but it would be better to upmerge and then create more meaningful categories such as Aikido techniques. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2019 (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/2019_September_19&oldid=918577974"