< December 21 December 23 >

December 22

Roman States

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 but if people decide a category for states created as the Empire fragmented is needed it's fine to create one. I'm going to list this at WP:CFDWM so we can put each one in its respective subcategory of Category:Ancient Rome by period, please help out if you feel like it. delldot ∇. 20:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Mishmashy category, Category:Ancient Rome by period serves the same purpose. Brandmeistertalk 23:23, 22 December 2012 (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.

Landforms of Edith Ronne Land

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 and rename, noncontroversial maintiance following the naming/renaming of the area in question. The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Edith Ronne Land was only ever an unofficial name for this Antarctic region, recently officially named Queen Elizabeth Land. The following subcategories will need renaming:

Grutness...wha? 23:19, 22 December 2012 (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:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland

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 fix capitalization. The issue of the split with buildings and congregations will have to be dealt with in another discussion since I'm not seeing enough here to call it a consensus for that. delldot ∇. 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CAPS, this cat is for all Presbyterian local churches in Ireland, not just members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. It appears that all of these are members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, however most of the Category:Presbyterian churches sub-cats are geographical rather than denominational, and the denominational category would be Category:Presbyterian Church in Ireland churches. JFHutson (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were going with buildings, why would we capitalize "Church?" Church is only capitalized in a singular proper noun, i.e. Presbyterian Church in Ireland or Ballylinney Presbyterian Church. As for "church buildings," each of these articles lists their current and former ministers, some of them mention the establishment of a church before the building of a church building or "meeting house," some of them talk about former buildings burning down, one discusses the current demographics of the congregation, and one discusses the ministries of the church, so no, they are not about church buildings and I'm getting tired of people asserting that articles about churches are always articles about church buildings. --JFHutson (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the attempt to speak of congregations rather than buildings, but a parish is not the same thing as a local church. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland does not appear to have a parish system, and even if it did this cat is intended to include all Presby churches (in the sense of local church congregations) in Ireland. Category:Presbyterian churches in Ireland should present no confusion. Even though denoms are called churches, it seems rather obvious what is intended when we get down to this level. --JFHutson (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Presbyterian Church in Ireland does not have parishes. It has congregations. See http://www.presbyterianireland.org/congregations/index.html --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split RE "parish", I took my lead from the sole example in the Republic - St. Andrew's, Blackrock - which states in its lead "The Blackrock parish was established in 1895 and the church was opened in 1899. Its sister church is St. Andrew's of Bray.". Having said that, I think that Vegaswikian's solution is best. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2012 (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:Identical twin actors

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. delldot ∇. 03:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As pointed out in a recent discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 10#Identical twins by occupation, merely being identical twins in acting is a non-notable intersection. However, acting in a single movie/episode/series, either as a single character (e.gJacob and Zachary Handy), or as identical twins (e.g James and Oliver Phelps) is more than an intersection. The category should be rescoped to the second, and renamed accordingly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:45, 22 December 2012 (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:Terminology

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 merge/rename. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these artilces and subcategories should be eventually be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure underCategory:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. Universally all of the following should be merged or moved to their "concepts" counterpart:

Greg Bard (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just because something is widely used in Wikipedia (a wiki which is capable of changing at any time) does consist in any justification of the status quo. Furthermore, if you will give me a minute, I will complete the necessary multiple category discussion tagging, as appropriateGreg Bard (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple category tagging is just making it more of a trainwreck. You're adding in more categories where the term "concept" is not accurate. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you fully appreciate the implications of the proposal. For any articles or categories that are not themselves "concepts" (object which appear in the mind only, not as the image of a particular physical object) , they will merely revert to the supracategory. This is a wonderful development that makes more appropriate categorization possible later.Greg Bard (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect example of why this is a good idea. A tutu is a physical object, not a concept. The article belongs in the more general ballet category, not some contrived terminological category.Greg Bard (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tutu is indeed a physical object, but it's also a term used to cover several similar and related objects. As such, it belongs in a specific terminology category, not in some even more contrived Concept category. Grutness...wha? 23:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should not even be a "terminology" category tree. The concepts category tree is well thought out, and well organized. I find it unfortunate that you are resorting to rhetoric, as there is no sense in which the "concepts" category is contrived at all. It is a well established ontological category, whereas "terminology" is not. Greg Bard (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure "tutu" is a word. But the tutu article is not about the word tutu (though the etymology of the English word is relevant to the subject), the tutu article is about tutus, whatever word we might use for them. By tutu being a term describing several similar or related objects, aren't all of those objects tutus? --JFHutson (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the thrust of your question. In my view what happens in the case of "tutu" is that it is moved to the supracategory "ballet." In my view there just is no additional benefit to a terminology category underneath any academic area, field of study, art , science etcetera. What great benefit is there to having e an "x" category and an "x terminology" category too? My main concern is that every article is classified under the Fundamental categories. So at some point "tutu" should be under the "physical object" category tree. If we do not merge these to concepts and move the inappropriate ones to their respective supracategories, there will eventually be a great unnecessary overlap and duplication.Greg Bard (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2012 (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.


On renaming terms to terminology

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: taken into account in closing each section below. – Fayenatic London 18:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to have to copy/paste to every discussion below, so just noting here that, in general, I support "terms", and oppose "terminology". "Terminology" gives the sense of some over-arching system of terms, which isn't necessarily the case in each instance. - jc37 01:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of Category:Religious 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: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. However, upmerge Category:Raëlian terms to Category:Raëlism per WP:SMALLCAT, and split Category:Theravadan terms and concepts to Category:Theravada Buddhist terms and Category:Theravada Buddhist concepts. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Religious terminology. Note that some others like Category:Bahá'í terminology and Category:Wiccan terminology use the "terminology" style. The Raelian category is just for one entry, and not one about terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The teminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's not actually correct. Terms is the plural. Terminology is not a plural at all, it's a completely different word that means 'system of terms'. It's an important distinction, but here only for one or two categories (e.g. Category:Glossaries of medical terms). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Category:Theravadan terms and concepts. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current terms, since there is no difference between "terms" and "terminology". IZAK (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose the merger proposal of Category:Raëlian terms to Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices: May I respectfully ask My Dear Friend Mike Selinker (and the supporters, if any?) to highlight at-least a couple of reasons that strictly demonstrates why the merger is an absolute necessity; I even question the venue On renaming terms to terminology chosen to discuss this very specific merger proposal (well, at-least to Me, it dosen't make much of a sense) ?! -- Abstruce (Talk) 08:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one article in Category:Raëlian terms. I'm happy to have that one go to "terminology" instead, but one article seems too small for such a category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2013 (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:Electronics terms[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. – Fayenatic London 18:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Electronics terms to Category:Electronics terminology
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Technical terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most (probably all) of the articles in the category are not about language and hence shouldn't be in a category under Category:Language at all. If moving to "terminology" would then make it easier to remove articles from the cat (less resistance from editors who don't understand that articles are categorized based on their subject, not whether the article title is a term etc) then I support rename, although in general we should try to avoid cluttering up edit histories with temporary renaming of categories. Similar subjects (Optics, Hydraulics etc) don't have a terms/terminology/miscellaneous category. DexDor (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2013 (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:Political terms[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 one also avoids ambiguity re term of office. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. "Political terms" is ambiguous, as it suggests lengths of time one might be in a particular political post. Note the subcategories Category:Geopolitical terminology and others.Mike Selinker (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(shrugs) no real problem with it - does make it broader which is a Good Thing I guess......Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The teminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gregbard, you don't seem to understand that terminology means 'system of terms'; it is not a synonym or plural of term. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per argument above by SMcCandlish. Mar4d (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2012 (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:Medical terms[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 excluding glossaries and obsolete terms; the latter likewise isn't a system of terms. – Fayenatic London 18:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. Note the subcategories Category:Dermatologic terminology and Category:Psychoanalytic terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: a less ambiguous "term"
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Better name, and far more useful that "concepts", since not all of these items relate to concepts. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are failing to see that this is a very useful thing that will make more appropriate categorization possible. Those that are not concepts will be moved elsewhere to more useful categorization. (Which heretofor has not happened because of the meaningless "terminology" category treeGreg Bard (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WITH EXCEPTION: Category:Glossaries of medical terms should remain as is. Terminology means a system of terms; glossaries contain terms, not systems of terms. It's the same distinction as between methodology and method. The non-glossary categories should be moved because they all could, arguably should and probably already do contain a "X terminology" article that is not a glossary of terms but an article about the system of terminology in that particular field. Confusing terminology with terms themselves is a Korzybskian fallacy, like mistaking the menu for a meal on it, or the map for the land features it describes. I obviously cannot agree with Gregbard that "terminology" is simply a long-winded way to say "term[s]"; there's a real distinction. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:15, 24 December 2012 (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:Martial arts terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard
  • Oppose Terms is much more succint - with respect to the concepts proposal concepts could replace principles I suppose but concepts and terms are not mutually inclusive.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC) (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Category:Aikido terms and principles. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Also Split Aikido, per Vegaswikian. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (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:Anti-cult terms 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: no consensus taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. I don't think "concepts" is needed here.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The teminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories. This particular category should be moved to Category:Anti-cult concepts. Greg Bard (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (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:Business terms[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, but split banking into Category:Banking terms and Category:Banking equipment. – Fayenatic London 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Business terms to Category:Business terminology
  • Propose renaming Category:Business term stubs to Category:Business terminology stubs
  • Propose renaming Category:Japanese business terms to Category:Japanese business terminology
  • Propose renaming Category:Show business terms to Category:Show business terminology
  • Propose renaming Category:International commerce terms to Category:International commerce terminology
  • Propose renaming Category:Insurance terms to Category:Insurance terminology
  • Propose renaming Category:Banking terms and equipment to Category:Banking terminology and equipment
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. Note that there are several subcategories of Category:Business terms which use "terminology," such as Category:Marketing terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Category:International commerce terms, as that's not a general name for any terminology relating to international commerce, but rather a specific group of things known precisely as "international commerce terms", or Incoterms for short. We can debate elsewhere whether the category should then also follow the short form used in the article title, but the proposed rename here should be rejected in any event. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Terminology is the more accepted plural form. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Category:Banking terms and equipment. Really terms and equipment? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. Split banking, per Vegaswikian. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:35, 24 December 2012 (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:Academic terms[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; there is a persuasive argument in this case to avoid ambiguity with Academic term, and "terminology" matches some sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. I am not sure all of these are needed; it might be reasonable to merge all three. I also don't think the "-related" is needed here; "School terms" is ambiguous with the concept of semesters and academic years, but "School terminology" isn't.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (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:LGBT terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per SmcC rationale. But each of the sub-cats should be named "terms". Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some of these are exactly terms, terminology seems to be a poor word choice here or perhaps everywhere. Insomesia (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (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:Magical terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2012 (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:Nautical terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Better name, and far more useful that "concepts", since not all of these items relate to concepts. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose all renames I don't see the point and "terms" seems perfectly accurate. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (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:Pornography terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (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:Publishing terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. See also the subcategory Category:Newspaper terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. The "Newspaper" is practically synonymous with "Publishing" and is certainly not another system. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (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:Sociological terms[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. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology. See also the subcategories Category:Globalization terminology‎ and Category:Imperialism terminology. ‎-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per SmcC rationale. Else take out the two sub-cats and keep current name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2012 (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:Climbing terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Climbing terms to Category:Climbing terminology
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (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:Wine terms[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 taking into account the general comments above. – Fayenatic London 18:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion and Category:Terminology.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Universally the term "terminology" should be eliminated from category and article names. It is completely useless, as everything in Wikipedia is terminology of some sort. All of these should be moved to "concepts" as appropriate, consistent with the classification under the Fundamental categories. There is a well organized category structure under Category:Concepts. The terminology categories are all "junk" categories which are best used as containers for otherwise unclassified articles. Once classified all of their content should be under one of the four fundamental categories.Greg Bard (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see subsequent Concepts counterproposal Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. These are categories about systems of terminology in particular fields, not just categories containing articles on terms. Each of them could, probably should, and in some cases probably already do contain articles about the terminological conventions in that field, not just term articles or glossaries. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I can live with terminology, but I see little problem with terms. Tomas e (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category does not contain a system of terms; it only contains terms, all of which relate to a single entity. The category is about technical terms not about systems, not even systems of terms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2012 (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 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:Křivoklát

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete basically per WP:SMALLCAT. This is a very small town (<1000 inhabitants) and although we could add Křivoklát Castle to the category, it's hard to imagine that it can ever grow beyond that. Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2012 (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:Buildings and structures in Thurles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to both parents. delldot ∇. 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Thurles. A
Proposer's rationale An example of over-categorisation. It's a small town, not a city. Contents belong to the parent Category:Buildings and structures in North Tipperary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (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:Dutch Reformed churches

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:Dutch Reformed Church buildings. I wasn't super clear on whether people preferred the upper- or lower-case 'church'; I picked the former per Jfhutson's explanation that that would refer to any buildings of the Dutch Reformed Church. Hopefully that will not include many more buildings than would belong in the "Church churches" category, which was widely opposed. I see this is not consistent with another discussion, but I also understand there's not consistency for naming of these categories. delldot ∇. 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I'm not going to rename the subcategories since they were not tagged and there was no discussion of them specifically except for in the nom, and the consensus was not so sweeping that I can consider it obvious enough to do under those circumstances. delldot ∇. 20:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Dutch Reformed churches to Category:Dutch Reformed Church churches
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other categories of congregations of denominations with "Church" in the name. This one is churches in the Dutch Reformed Church. Please also rename sub-categories. JFHutson (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think buildings are all that is being referred to here, and in other church categories. A local congregation is commonly referred to as a church. Also, Category:Dutch Reformed church buildings would be all Reformed church buildings which are Dutch, and Category:Dutch Reformed Church buildings would include all buildings of the Dutch Reformed Church, churches and otherwise. So even if we use building I would prefer Category:Dutch Reformed Church church buildings --JFHutson (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about church being ambiguous. So since most of these are about buildings, a point you may disagree with, they should be renamed to reflect that. Then if necessary categories can be created for the minority that include more than a passing mention of the congregation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I said anything about the term being ambiguous. I think I'm being misunderstood to say sometimes church means church building and sometimes it means congregation. What I mean is that church means a local congregation (when it doesn't refer to a denom or the church universal), which has a building, which is referred to as such and such a church as a shorthand, just as my workplace is sometimes referred to as such and such a company even though it would be absurd to describe my company as a building. All church articles which currently only mention buildings have the church that meets/met there within the scope of the article. The fact that the article does not mention the congregation just means the article is underdeveloped, because why would you have a church building without a congregation? Perhaps there are sects that do not have any organizational entity that corresponds with a local congregation, but the Dutch Reformed ain't one of them.
I did not make this nom to argue over buildings and church bodies, but because the contents of this cat implied local churches in the Dutch Reformed Church denom, but the title implies all churches which are Dutch and Reformed in character, which is much broader. --JFHutson (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2012 (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:Fictional United States congressional districts

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. postdlf (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, two articles one I prodded as an article with a dubious agenda, the second one not really fictional Delete Secret account 01:39, 22 December 2012 (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:Episcopal churches

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 rename. delldot ∇. 20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be unambiguous and to match the parent category, Category:Anglican church buildings and the other siblings of that category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the articles in the cat are about organizations (congregations), not buildings. As an example, I randomly selected St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Brewster, New York). The church began meeting in a town hall in 1872 until it burned down. A church building was built in 1881, and another one replaced this one in 1901. The article is properly about the congregation that met in these places, even though it is notable for the architectural features of the current building. The article discusses some of the ministers, ministries, and organizations of the church. This article, and I suspect every other article in the cat, is about a church in the sense of local church rather than church building, even though information about a building is often (though not always) what makes the articles notable. --JFHutson (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But most of these are probably NRHP articles and as such are about the building often making no mention of the use of the building or the denomination. In most cases these are created from a listing and the fact that a congregation was there is not material. In fact if the name does not establish a denomination, there is nothing in the article text to identify the worshiping denomination. It should also be pointed out that some of these may also be used by multiple denominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (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