Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2

edit

Category:WikiProject Sailor Moon participants

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. (This appears to be a duplicate of this discussion from 2014 JUN 1, but no matter—I've closed them simultaneously and the result is the same.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - we don't have a WikiProject for Sailor Moon, we have a task force within Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:29, 6 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.
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: the result is mixed
  • Opposition
renaming Category:Priestesses to Category:Female clergy no
  • Support for these proposals:
Category:Ordained Christian women to be recategorised and not under Priestess.
Category:Priestesses is not to be used for Christian or Buddhist Religious workers.
take out Category:Christian nuns as a subcategory of clergy
Female Christian clergy to become a child category of Christian clergy
Creation of a new Category:Female clergy under Category:Clergy and under a new Category:Female religious workers, that will contain Christian and Buddhist female clergy
Creation of a new Category:Female religious workers under Category:Religious workers that will contain Female clergy (Christian and Buddhist) and Priestesses (excluding Buddhist)
recategorise ('other') Priestesses from the Clergy tree to under Category:Female religious workers
rename Category:Female Christian clergy and religious to Category:Female Christian clergy
  • No consensus or needs another CFD
Renaming any categories to include the term "leader"
Moving clergy from religious workers to religious leaders
renaming Category:Ordained Christian women to Category:Female Christian clergy

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Five proposals in conjunction
edit
Current categorization tree (at the moment of posting the proposal)
edit

Currently the categorization tree for women clergy across religions is as follows:

Please note that, in the across-religion tree, Christian subcategories appear with different namings. While within Category:Christian clergy there is nothing quickly visible as female Christian clergy.

Proposed categorization tree (as a result of the proposals)
edit

The proposed consistent categorization tree for women clergy across religions would simply be as follows:

And similarly within Christianity the proposed simple and categorization tree would be as follows:

The five proposals describe together how to get from the current categorization to the proposed categorization tree.

Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st round of comments
edit
  • keep Priestesses, as an analogue to Category:Priests; it was in the wrong place which I fixed. Is there a difference between Ordained women and clergy? Can one be ordained without being clergy? I fixed some of the categorizations so some of the problems you describe are fixed already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there is no difference between Ordained women and Female clergy, that's exactly why I've left out Ordained women from the proposed categorization tree. Thank you for trying to fix some problems, but I've lost track of what you did exactly. For example, how do you now get from Clergy to Female clergy? How do you get from Christian clergy to Female Christian clergy? Isn't it better to revert these changes while this discussion is still pending? I think the best is that we discuss first whether or not the proposed categorization I posted here is indeed the most logical and simple one.Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nd round of comments
edit
I don't think we need a "female clergy", any more than we need a "male clergy". These are trees which are divided by gender for the most part, so under Category:Clergy by type you find Category:Priests and Category:Priestesses. Category:Female Christian clergy and religious which contains nuns is nonetheless a useful container, I don't think we need to ensure that the Category:Clergy tree never includes people who aren't clergy, it is common as you go down the branches of the tree to violate some of the precepts of the parents. another possibility might be to rename Category:Ordained Christian women as Category:Female Christian priests since the word priestess is not used for them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think some deaconesses are not ordained, but may still be considered clergy. I think in some religions there are also deacons who who aren't ordained. I don't think "clergy" can be kept entirely free of people who aren't necessarily called Clergy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, here's my reply:

  • I don't agree that we wouldn't need 'female clergy', the reason being the controversiality of female clergy in history and between christian branches and (still) the scarcity of female clergy. Female is really a distinctive characteristic within clergy.
  • I don't really understand why putting Female Christian clergy and religious could be useful, since clergy and nuns are entirely different. One wouldn't put Monks under 'Clergy and Monks' either, right?
  • Renaming Ordained Christian women into Female Christian priests instead of Female Christian clergy is an interesting suggestion.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd round of comments
edit
  • comment I am not convinced that there is a way to shoehorn all these religions together; indeed, I'm finding it hard even to pick a single word word that I feel comfortable in using across all. I would say, however, that if "priestess" is retained it should be limited to religions in which there is a specifically female priestly role. In Christianity, for instance, those groups which have women priests most emphatically do not call them "priestesses" because the point is, after all, that men and women fulfill the same role without regard to gender. Mangoe (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've considered this while thinking this all over. It's really a tough puzzle. My proposal consists of having 'Female Christian clergy' and 'Ancient priestesses' next to each other, both as subcategories of 'Female clergy'. So I'm deliberately not proposing to rename 'Ancient priestesses' into 'Ancient female clergy'. However, the parent category of them both cannot be anything else than 'Female clergy', entirely analogue to the way as the parent category across religions is named 'Clergy' (which includes Christian clergy and Ancient priests).Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4th round of comments
edit
  • Comment - (1) nuns are not "ordained" at all. (2) "Priestesses" in a Christian context is entirely inappropriate. (3) "Clergy" in a non-Christian context is also mostly inappropriate. (4 and principally) It's not appropriate to categorise people (or things, or anything) as something they are not simply to make a category scheme work. Eustachiusz (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting renaming to the rather bland "Female clergy" is less inclusive and less easy to understand than "priestesses", which captures a broader spectrum. As you go deeper in the category tree, the grandparents and great grandparents sometimes become less applicable - c'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further comments, here's my reply:

  • Commenting on Eustachiusz' #1: entirely agree! That is exactly the point of my 5th proposal.
  • Commenting on Eustachuisz' #2: I agree, that's also why I prefer 'female clergy' over 'priestesses' as the generalizable term across religions (another reason is that female clergy does not only contain female Christian priests but also female Christian bishops).
  • Commenting on Eustachiusz' #3: according Clergy, it appears that clergy is a generalizable term across religions. This is what I've based myself on.
  • Commenting on Eustachiusz' #4: I agree. Though if something works for men, it should also work for women.
  • Commenting on Obiwankenobi: according to Clergy, 'priests' is under 'clergy', so 'clergy' is apparently more inclusive rather than less inclusive. Generally, I do recognize with you that it's sometimes not possible to have a perfect match between (grand)parents and (grand)children.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. It seems to me that it's necessary to keep "Priestesses" and "Female clergy" separate. Neither is adequate as an over-term, as neither can include the other (Wikipedia can't serve as its own source and I discount the article on "clergy"). I appreciate that some flexibility may be necessary but there is a point beyond which a cat has to be accurate, however inconvenient that may be. Another term is needed which can accurately include both "Priestesses" and "Female clergy" level with each other as separate cats. English is a versatile language: it must be possible to come up with something that will cover both - accurately (which is more or less what Mangoe said above).
So of your five proposals I agree with the last four but not with the first one. Eustachiusz (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! May I then also conclude there is overall consensus about proposals #2, #3, #4 and #5, but no consensus yet about proposal #1 ? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Priestesses and Female Christian clergy
edit

This continues on the comments of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Eustachiusz in the 4th round of comments.

The question really is, is 'priestess' a type of clergy or not? In the current categorization, for what it's worth, it is indeed regarded as a type of clergy. If they belong to clergy, then they certainly belong to female clergy too. While if they aren't clergy, we do not need to discuss the subject at all.

(Btw I thought solely for categorization purposes we are allowed to rely on the main Wikipedia article of the respective category. If we're not, I'm not really sure how to proceed from here.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not bound by my opinion! and you have a precedent in the parallel cat tree. But I didn't see, even in the Wikipedia article, any claim that priestesses - I'm thinking primarily of what Wikipedia calls "Ancient priestesses" - are clergy. Eustachiusz (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm not bound :-), it's just that I'm neutral in the choice between two extremes:

  1. keep priestesses included in clergy -> then also include them in female clergy
  2. or remove priestesses from clergy entirely

While I'm opposed to keeping them in clergy but not including them in female clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is too much unclarity in both terms, "clergy" AND "priestesses", for it to be possible to reach a stable conclusion based on either of them. It also seems very debatable that "priestess" is the correct term for a female Buddhist priest any more than it is for a Christian one. The easiest solution is perhaps to eliminate the overlap by (a) reducing "Priestesses" to "Ancient", "Fictional" and "Wiccan"; and (b) restricting female members of modern organised religions to "Female clergy"; both Category:Priestesses and Category:Female clergy (with Female Buddhist, Female Christian etc as sub-cats) can then sit side by side as sub-cats of Category:Female religious workers under Category:Religious workers. (Let's not even worry about whether "Religious workers" is OK or not!) "Vestal virgins" can be slotted in under "Ancient priestesses". Eustachiusz (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up
edit

It seems like we've an agreement on the following:

  1. Propose upmerging Category:Female Christian clergy and religious to Category:Ordained Christian women
  2. Propose renaming Category:Ordained Christian women to Category:Female Christian clergy
  3. Propose taking out Category:Christian nuns as a childcat from the new category Female Christian clergy
  4. Propose moving the new category Female Christian clergy to become a child cat of Christian clergy instead of a child cat of Clergy
  5. (new proposal) Creation of a new Category:Female clergy under Category:Clergy and under a new Category:Female religious workers, that will contain Christian and Buddhist female clergy
  6. (new proposal) Creation of a new Category:Female religious workers under Category:Religious workers that will contain Female clergy (Christian and Buddhist) and Priestesses (excluding Buddhist)
  7. (new proposal) Moving ('other') Priestesses from the Clergy tree to under Category:Female religious workers

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the only thing I can see at the moment to add is that "Buddhist priestesses" should be renamed Category:Female Buddhist clergy.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the tree to have consistent use of "female Christian clergy". Remove nuns from being in this tree. Avoid using "priestess" with any Christian. In most Christian traditions most of the uses of that word are associated with non-Christian practices and views. The one exception might be in certain areas of thought among Latter-day Saints, but no Latter-day Saint would go around referring to Bonnie L. Oscarson as a priestess, but I could argue that such a title might be theologically sound. From a terminology standpoint these are terms Christians do not use. Christians use the term "female priest" or "woman priest" when they recognize the possiblity of such. It is true that in 1st millenium Christianity in places such as France, the term "obispa", which I cannot think of even how to make an English feminized form of bishop would be, bishoptess maybe, did exist. But this was the title of the wife of the bishop, and apparently not a clerical figure at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Religious leaders"
edit
  • As for Category:Clergy, move it back down from Category:Religious workers into Category:Religious leaders; the article clergy says Clergy are some of the formal leaders within certain religions. In the longer term, I think it may be best to merge/rename all clergy categories as "religious leaders", as has already been done for Islamic clergy, see CFD 2012 August 12, because of SHAREDNAME and because it's largely a duplicate layer, but that is beyond the scope of this CFD. @Cgingold: can you remember why you made this change? – Fayenatic London 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your contribution! I won't go into all details (yet), I think the most important thing to discuss is the concept of Religious leader. This concept would be perfectly fine for non-hierarchical-organized religions, but I foresee a problem with hierarchical-organized religions. 'Leaders' would then only be applicable for people higher up in the hierarchy (starting at which level?), while 'Clergy' is already used to indicate everyone ordained in the entire hierarchy (regardless level). For this reason I guess it's a sort of unavoidable to keep a 'Clergy' category here in Wikipedia (as well). What's your opinion about this? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I came here because closure was requested at WP:AN, but if I were going to close it (I'm not), I would have to close it as "Too confusing". Perhaps there's consensus here, but the layout and the discussion are very confusing, and it would probably be really difficult for anyone to close — you've basically had a normal "how does this work" discussion, not a CFD. I'd advise that someone start a new CFD with a specific proposal shaped by this discussion, ensure that all other participants in this discussion participate in the new one, and give others the chance to participate without understanding everything that happened here. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 19 August 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:Harlequins Rugby League 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: merge. (It would be nice if we could convince the baseball purists to do the same. The fact that we have Category:Tampa Bay Devil Rays players and Category:Tampa Bay Rays players is a bit silly, IMO.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Harlequins RL are the same club as the current London Broncos, but just played under a different name for a few years. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Even though their articles may say they played for Harlquins, the links will be to the Broncos' article. One in the same article = one in the same category.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:19, 2 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.
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: speedy rename per WP:BOLD Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see no reason for the plural form here, and "in popular culture" is the usual form for these categories. LadyofShalott 17:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been bold and moved it, as no other in pop culture categories have "cultures" in them. NAC and all that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:09, 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:Twins in Indian films

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, but as the parent was kept, strengthen criteria and purge. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a performer-by-performance overcategorization. As far as I can tell, most of the films here are films in which one actor plays the role of twins. The fact that an actor played two roles is unlikely to be DEFINING of the films. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it's 1) poorly worded and 2) non-defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 50 articles in this category! *IF* twins are a Thing in Indian films, then it's reasonable to have a category for films that are in fact defined by their twinitude. (I imagine, say, some kind of romantic comedy plot device, or something culturally specific.) But if it's defining then it should be able to support an article -- something like, Twins in Indian film -- describing and discussing this genre phenomenon. I think someone should go through this category's articles to be sure that these films are actually "defined" by having twins in them. If it's really 50 such films then that's evidence that there's a thing. If, after pruning, it's just a few, then I would upmerge into Category:Twins in fiction. --Lquilter (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've just nominated Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_4#Category:Twins_in_fiction for deletion as well. I think whether for indian films or not, presence-of-twins is not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you think it's just someone picking out trivial plot devices? rather than some culturally specific twin genre/theme? If so I'm happy to delete. Seems more like a list / article sort of topic. --Lquilter (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename: Based on a sample, I would conclude that categorization has been done with prudence. I can imagine that we keep this as yet another case of 'Films by topic', which contains a large variety of subcategories, like Films about babies, Sports films and so on. However, it should be named 'Indian films about twins' rather than 'Twins in Indian films'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 5 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:Mayors of Linesville, Pennsylvania

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, also to Category:People from Linesville, Pennsylvania. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 1 entry. Small town mayors are rarely notable so there is little chance for expansion. Please note I also nominated 'People from Linesville, Pennsylvania' for merging. If that category is kept, then the one entry here should also be merged into that category. ...William 12:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons given, and add the one person in this category to Category:People from Linesville, Pennsylvania. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 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:People from Linesville, Pennsylvania

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 4 entries. ...William 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 5 people in this category, if you include the mayor who is listed in Category:Mayors of Linesville, Pennsylvania (discussed above). That's not a big category, but it's big enough to justify maintaining the category. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 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 surf lifesavers

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_1#Category:Lifeguards. The Australian sibling category is justified, but this is not. In any case it appears to be following an Australian name; if not merged, it should probably be renamed as American lifeguards. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 2 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.

Merge Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology

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: relisted at 2014 July 8. – Fayenatic London 07:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This proposal is my attempt to deal with the mess illustrated by the individual case discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_2#Merge_Category:Biological_concepts_and_Category:Biology_terminology. This is a problem with numerous categories from Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology, both of which are rather problematic as they are containers for articles that people just wanted to remove from the parent categories but couldn't figure out where they should go. To be honest, I'd probably support deleting both categories (as a sociologist and Wikipedian, I don't really see why all articles from Category:Sociological terminology shouldn't be in Category:Sociology, pending a more meaningful categorization). But for now, instead of proposing the nuclear option, let's at least deal with a mess of having two container categories for "stuff people don't know how to categorize and thus call foo-ian concepts or terminology". A number overlap in a similar way to the Biology example discussed, consider for example Category:Philosophical terminology and Philosophical concepts‎ - is just one of several. Another problem is illustrated bt arbitrary choices: why do we have Category:Engineering concepts‎ but no Category:Engineering terminology? Or Category:Sociological terminology‎ but no Category:Sociological concepts? For a perfect illustration of the arbitrary system, consider the prior sociology example - and the reverse in psychology: we have Category:Psychological concepts‎ but no Category:Psychological terminology. I hope I make a clear case that those categories are about the same type/level of concepts. Let's merge them - probably to terminology as it is more popular. Once that happens we can have another discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting the resulting category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many/most articles that are currently in terminology categories are categorized inappropriately (e.g. the Fishing trawler article does not belong under Category:Linguistics) - see my essay for more details. This proposed merge would bring even more articles about topics that have nothing to do with linguistics under Category:Linguistics. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 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.

Merge Category:Biological concepts and Category:Biology terminology

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: relisted at 2014 July 8. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no significant difference between concept and terminology in those cases, articles are added to one or the other - or both - more or less at random. I am not sure which direction we should merge things, but I am leaning towards terminology and Category:Terminology is more widely used than Category:Concepts by field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These categories contain articles like Synonym (taxonomy), Homonym (biology) and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. If you think articles like that shouldn't exist then delete them by AfD and then take the category to CFD. As long as Category:Ecology terminology (for example) exists then it should have a terminology parent category. This CFD proposes deleting a mid-level terminology category - a CFD to delete lowest-level terminology categories would probably get my support. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 5 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:Neo-Nazi movements and concepts

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: split. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. A clear case of two different concepts (sic) merged into one. Since we already have a perfectly valid Category:Neo-Nazi organizations, we should just rename this to Category:Neo-Nazi concepts, and recategorize subarticles by removing them from this category if they are already in the organization one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 2 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:Mountain Lakes geography stubs

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; if Mountain Lakes ever becomes the undisambiguated article about the WV region, then this could be re-considered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Mountain Lakes is a redirect to Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, and that topic is unrelated to the topic of this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current name The West Virginia geostubs were sorted according to the government-defined regions of the state; it's not a neologism, and surely we should consider a seven-county region more significant (i.e. primary) than a borough with about four thousand residents. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom category name is ambiguous, does not match the "main article" and the stub type indicates West Virginia -- {{MountainLakesWV-geo-stub}} -- so the category should as well. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as nominator) - I would also like to point out that as of now (4 days after the nomination was made), there appears not to be an article on the region; if I were trying to convince the community to keep the current name of the category, I would have, at least, fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (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.

Category:Naval magazine explosions

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 close is no bar to a fresh nomination e.g. for merging to Category:Non-combat internal explosions on warships. – Fayenatic London 11:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles that have been placed in this (recently created) category are not articles about explosions, they are articles about ships - which are already in many categories (this category is getting into WP:DNWAUC territory). Note: This could be listified. If kept this should be renamed to something like "Ships sunk by explosion of magazine", ships that were just damaged should be removed (per a previous CFD) and it should be placed under a ships category. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with placing it under a ships category. I'm not aware of any ships that were merely damaged by the explosion of one of their magazines, it's an all-or-nothing event. I'm unconvinced that it's out of place in the "explosions" category: 100 tons of propellant exploding (or deflagrating) is not inconsequential just because it happened on a ship, and each of the events is historically notable. Acroterion (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the article on Vanguard "the destruction of the Vanguard remains the most catastrophic accidental explosion in the history of the UK", with a greater death toll than any single land-based explosion in the UK (see List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland), arguing for it to remain in some fashion as a sub-category for explosions. I will note that a category exists for Category:Ships sunk by non-combat internal explosions, which covers some of these, (i.e., Vanguard and Bulwark), so there is scope for re-organizing the ships sub-cats. Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Acroterion notes, it's not practically possible for a ship merely to be damaged by the explosion of its magazine — destruction is inevitable. The only way merely to be damaged is if bits of the exploding ship impact other ships; no need to categorise those ships here. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As already noted, we have a category already for explosions that weren't battle-related. Explosions in battle are just one of a number of mechanisms by which ships are damaged or destroyed, and I note that the subject of the most familiar photograph of a magazine explosion, the USS Shaw (DD-373), survived another four years of service before scrapping. Nor are magazines the only things on ships that explode. I don't see making a distinction as to why a ship sinks when it is bombed or torpedoed. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, anything can be repaired if naval types want to, as long as it's not totally sunk (Shaw was already in drydock, so she couldn't sink); the magazine explosion there is just as relevant to her as it is to ships such as Invincible (the photo I linked). My point was that a magazine explosion shouldn't be treated like a fire or a big hole or something else that will damage just part of the ship before you get around to repairing it; it's inevitably a huge event, and aside from anomalies such as Shaw (who expects magazines to explode in drydock?), it inevitably sinks the ship. Note that they're not always in battle; HMS Vanguard blew up (probably from a magazine explosion) at anchor. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reason for the category is precisely because these events tend to produce the most familiar images of naval explosions, and they were more common than generally realized. Historically, the vulnerability of British capital ships to such events was something of a scandal during WWI. I'm not sure why the Shaw event argues against the category: as Nyttend notes, Shaw couldn't sink, and the Navy made a point of salvaging and repairing every ship from Pearl Harbor they possibly could regardless of military expediency. There's a point where a line must be drawn: I've included Barham, for instance, but am undecided about Princeton. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 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:Building 429

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too small to warrant an eponymous category for now. Pichpich (talk) 01:42, 2 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:International Summit

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no formal definition distinguishing an international summit from other diplomatic conferences and we already have Category:Diplomatic conferences for that. Note that the only article currently in the category is PROD-tagged and likely to be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 01:36, 2 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:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

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: speedily rename per C2D. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main page of the main category was renamed from 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. Several related pages were moved to reflect the unrest to conflict move as well. Dustin (talk) 01:25, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_2&oldid=1090673068"