< November 20 November 22 >

November 21

Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom

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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_8#Category:Religious_sees_in_the_United_Kingdom because it wasn't tagged. Kbdank71 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious sees in the United Kingdom to Category:Dioceses in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are, practically speaking, homonyms. The articles in the category, without exception, are about the latter. Only the cat on Scotland uses the word "see". Additionally, the adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as "see" that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese" (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (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:Religious sees

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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_8#Category:Religious_sees because it wasn't tagged. Kbdank71 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious sees to Category:Dioceses
Nominator's rationale: The two terms are homonyms. The adjective "religious" is superfluous. There is no such noun as a see that is not always a religious see. The parent category reverts to "diocese (e.g. Category:Dioceses in Europe. If this re-name is successful, then all children of the category will also need to be re-named by the same rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Province" is a special case, in that it lacks a consistent definition across episcopally-organized churches. I question whether we should use it as a category at all. The other cases are all subspecies of dioceses and if we feel so compelled could be made subcategory hierarchies of Category: Dioceses. I suppose the other solution would be to make Category:Religious sees the root and put all the other subspecies directly from it. However there is absolutely no reason to have a "episcopal see" hierarchy with subcategories of "Religious sees in X". Behind all of this is that the hierarchy of dioceses is not especially consistent, as it cannot seem to decided whether to divide up by geography and then by church, or by church and then geography. This is important to the present discussion because the hierarchy within the different churches uses different terms and structures, so that (for instance) in Anglicanism the title of "archbishop" does not correspond to its usage in the Catholic Church (an RC archbishop for instance is more or less at the same level in the hierarchy as an ECUSA diocesan bishop, whereas an Anglican archbishop more closely corresponds to the Pope or to the head of one of the uniate churches). It might make more sense to reorganize the whole tree by church/communion and then establish separate patterns for each. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with user Mangoe's analysis above and Support the suggestion to organise by church/communion rather than by state. Ireland is a prime example where both the RC Church and the Church of Ireland are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The dioceses of each criss-cross the border. It is an entirely artificial device to pretend that they could be compartmentalised by state. Having said that, a continental geographic is probably worthwhile. It's less likely that dioceses would straddle continental divides. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2010 (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:Songs written by Billy Yates

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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Billy Yates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, not likely to expand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (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:Dorabella Cipher

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: upmerge article and delete category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dorabella Cipher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains two articles: the main article Dorabella Cipher and a user page. Pburka (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2010 (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:Burj Khalifa

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: upmerge sole article delete category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Burj Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Move images to commons and delete the category or just tag the images and delete the category. No reason to have images categories awaiting moving to commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2010 (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:North Battleford North Stars players

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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:North Battleford North Stars players to Category:Battlefords North Stars alumni
Nominator's rationale: Match category to article name, and change from players to alumni to match junior hockey standard. Resolute 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below, I am seeking to address the inconsistency in junior team categories, and seek to bring all under the umbrella of "alumni". The only reason I did this one separately was because it involved a change to the entire category name, rather than one word, as the others are. Resolute 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what happens when I don't scroll down. :)
  • Thank you for clarifying, I've revised my comment. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciated! And to answer your remaining question, there does not seem a difference between American and Canadian junior terminologies. The CfR below includes USHL and SJHL teams for the most part, so from both countries. Resolute 20:58, 21 November 2010 (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.

Junior hockey alumni

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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Junior hockey graduates are considered alumni of their organizations, and by their leagues. (i.e.: USHL Alumni) Propose rename of the following categories to bring them in alignment with the majority of junior hockey alumni categories. Resolute 17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, my example on the talk page at WT:HOCKEY is that we categorize graduates of schools as alumni. i.e.: Category:Harvard University alumni. We don't call them Category:Harvard University students. Junior hockey organizations classify their former players as graduates, and define them as alumni. On that basis, the proposed move is changing to the more accurate terminology. And, much like former students of educational institutions, junior players are overwhelmingly non-notable until after they graduate, so there is little concern about trying to differentiate between "present" and "past" as only a handful of players a year would fall afoul of this. Resolute 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it has, and given I can show any number of examples of junior hockey graduates being defined as alumni, I would ask why that should not be considered the proper naming scheme. Your opposition really is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Resolute 16:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, I can show quite a few examples of junior hockey using the term "players" as well, likely considerably more than the number that use "alumni." As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I also wouldn't like it if there were Category:National Basketball Association ballers or Category:Major League Baseball sluggers. Just because there is an alternate terminology for two countries doesn't mean the structure of the category system has to bend to it. This is more of a procedural objection, though. I don't actually expect that you guys will change your minds, and since that's the case, not having outliers within the "alumni" structure is a good thing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (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:Calgary Royals alumni

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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Calgary Royals alumni to Category:Calgary Mustangs alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename category to match article as the team has adopted a new nickname for this season. Resolute 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was considering that when making both noms. Basically, I am marrying the category tree to the article title - and the hockey team is the primary title. I don't see any reason why the article names should change, but if there is determined to be a need to dab this category, then so be it. Resolute 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure—just raising it as an issue. I don't oppose the current proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2010 (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:Calgary Mustangs players

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Calgary Mustangs players to Category:Calgary Mustangs (soccer) players
Nominator's rationale: To match article title, avoid confusion with the hockey team of the same name. Resolute 17:01, 21 November 2010 (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.

Photography by country

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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My request concerns a number of subcategories of Category:Photography by country, and I think a brief introduction to what's there may help.

The subcategories have two naming patterns, exemplified by "Category:French photography" and "Category:Photography in Japan". A counter-illustration: there is no combination of both (say) "Freedonian photography" and "Photography in Freedonia"; it's only the one or the other. (Indeed, for the majority of nations -- even "major" ones such as Canada or Italy -- there's neither.) Regardless of the form of the title, the typical content combines (i) "Category:Freedonian photographers" as a subcategory with (ii) a small number of miscellaneous pages. However, those with the longer titles ("Photography in Freedonia", etc) tend to have rather more pages, including the names of photographers from elsewhere.

For three categories -- Category:Bulgarian photography, Category:Serbian photography, and Category:United Arab Emirati photography -- there's nothing beyond the relevant "photographers" subcategory.

There would be a small gain in elegance via consistent use of one or other of these naming patterns. Between them, my own first reaction is preference for the adjective. (Certainly I far prefer the simple "British photography" to the pomposity of "Photography in the United Kingdom".) However, I conclude by swaying in the opposite direction, and consistency has nothing to do with it. Below, I explain.

What do or can these titles mean? Despite some special pleading, "French photography" (say) is not meaningful in the sense that "French philosophy" (let alone "French horn") is. (At best, there's been the occasional decade about which it may make sense to talk about a French style.) Rather, "French photography" has meant something like "what French photographers have done" or "photography in France", no more.

Now let's consider how Wikipedia might treat two small bodies of work.

The French photographer (and Magnum member) Marc Riboud visited Japan in the 50s and took all the photographs for a (French) book whose English-language edition is titled Women of Japan. (There's also a Dutch-language edition.)

The Japanese photographer Ihei Kimura visited Paris around the same period and took photographs for a book of his own that won high praise and was much later reissued with English as well as Japanese text and with the English title Paris.

Now, Wikipedia is keen to label biographees by origin. Thus these two belong to, respectively, Category:French photographers and Category:Japanese photographers. However, I for one am just as interested in who's been photographing what or where. Perhaps Riboud might eventually be in "Category:Photography of women in Japan" or similar, but some days ago I settled for adding him to Category:Photography in Japan. Easy so far. But how about Kimura? Was he carrying out "Category:French photography"? Perhaps yes, perhaps no; if I added him, a later editor might well toss him out of that. "Photography in Freedonia" seems handy.

What about Freedonian photographers who've spent most of their careers outside Freedonia? Wouldn't "Freedonian photography" be far more appropriate? Yes it would, but these people are already in the category "Freedonian photographers".

Below, the specifics. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted word of this at Talk:Photography in Australia, Talk:Photography in Denmark, and Talk:Norwegian photography (the only top pages), and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of photography. -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United Arab Emirati photography to Category:Photography in the United Arab Emirates. (Or just deleting it.)
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian photography to Category:Photography in Bulgaria. (Or just deleting it.)
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Serbian photography to Category:Photography in Serbia. (Or just deleting it.)
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American photography to Category:Photography in the United States (or similar).
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian photography to Category:Photography in Australia.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British photography to Category:Photography in Britain (or similar).
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change to different name. Suggest that the change be to Category:Photography in the United Kingdom. JackJud (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Danish photography to Category:Photography in Denmark.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French photography to Category:Photography in France.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Norwegian photography to Category:Photography in Norway.
Nominator's rationale: See above. Hoary (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (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.
More