< November 24 November 26 >

November 25

Category:Lutheran sermon writers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category, WP:NONDEF. Note: it wouldn't surprise me if sister categories would suffer from the same problem but I guess for a WP:NONDEF nomination every category needs to be judged on its own merits by checking all or at least a decent sample of articles in the category itself. So that's why it's not a group nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got two types of replies here, the first one reply is a more general comment. Being a Lutheran pastor/priest is the real defining characteristic of the persons in this category, while sermon writing is just part of their activities of a Lutheran pastor/priest. Having a category 'sermon writers' as a child of clergy would be similar to having a category 'paint users' as a child category of painters. The issue is actually not about the writing of sermons but about the publication of sermons which can have been done by the person himself or after his/her death. In any case I really wouldn't consider a publication of sermons to be defining for any pastor/priest.
The more detailed answer is by analyzing all the articles in the category, which IMHO also confirms that sermon writing is not a defining characteristic:
Arndt: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, no separate publication of sermons, brief mentioning that some of his sermons were included in a wider collection of sermons
Brochmand: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, mentioning that one publication of sermons was popular for two decades in the 17th century
Chemnitz: "sermon writer" neither mentioned in header nor in body text of article, only a number of separate sermons are included in a list of works
Coleman: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Gerhard: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Habermann: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, publication of sermons briefly mentioned in body text
Harms: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, publication of 'volumes of sermons' mentioned in body text
Haugan: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Laestadius: his sermons are mentioned in the body text, but no sermons publications
Löhe: his sermons are briefly mentioned in the body text, but no sermons publications
Luther: there's no point contesting sermon writer for Luther, but it should be noted that Luther is already in so many related categories that it's questionable if adding him also to a sermon writer category adds much value
Melanchthon: same as Luther
Paul: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Pavels: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Reu: "sermon writer" not mentioned at all
Solorainen: "sermon writer" not mentioned in header of article, mentioning one book of sermons being published at the very end of the body text of the article
I hope that this explanation suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kostas Lazarides

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (There has never been an RM for the article. This might be helpful if there are further issues with agreeing on a name, but judging from the reasons given for the various moves, it will probably be stable where it is now.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the recent page move, he is almost always identified only as Kostas, so I moved the page again to Kostas (songwriter). The category should still match. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chronology of Fictional Works

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:History of fiction for now, recognising that more work may be needed on the contents and perhaps on the category name and purpose. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is at best a rather spurious category and contains a random selection of articles many of which are neither chronologies nor based on works of fiction Bikeroo (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_21#Category:Fictional_timelines -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bikeroo: May I please respectfully invite you to nominate any article of your choice which I have included in this category, and I will point out why it's related to works of fiction, and where the chronological section lies in the article. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: No, I am not try to determine a chronology for fictional characters, but a chronology of fictional lore. Such chronologies in fact, contain neither original research, nor do they attempt to reach a conclusion which is not explicitly stated by the sources. The sources, by the way, are the works of fiction in themselves, be they books, films, or other types of fictional material. Also, please note that I had already initiated a proposal to rename the category Chronologies of Works of Fiction, so as to make clear that this category is not for fictitious works, but for works of fiction that truly exist. Joe Gatt (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that doesn't clear up what this cat is about at all. I will note that, along with the OR that I have already mentioned, this there are two more problems per WP:CATDEF - namely "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories" and "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article" - As of now I cannot find any of the articles in this category meeting these guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarnetteD: Just to clarify what this category is all about: This category is simply to group together all those articles that contain timelines of artistic works of fiction. There are quite a number of such Wikipedia articles, and I think that they deserve a category of their own. In fact, this need has been demonstrated from an earlier and very IMPORTANT prior discussion concerning the proposal to rename Category:Fictional timelines to Category:Chronology of Fictional Works (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_21), which should clarify why this new category (and page) is sorely needed on Wikipedia, so as to DIFFERENTIATE between in-world fictional timelines, and between timelines of artistic works of fiction. I suggest that participants in this discussion view that particular discussion as well, so as to clarify what this category is meant to achieve. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: Sorry about the confusion, I neither intended it, nor did I forsee it. Following your suggestion, may I please propose renaming the category to History of fictional lore? Joe Gatt (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional renaming suggestions for Category:Chronology of Fictional Works are: History of narratives of fiction, or History of fiction, or The evolution of fiction. Joe Gatt (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: However it does not look like that Publication history of DC Comics crossover events is truly a publication history, because it has entries for year 2015 ! :-) Joe Gatt (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Films are also stenciled in with 2015 release dates. That article is still about the publication history, and not in-universe history. Go to any book publisher, you'll see release dates for 2015 as well. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: I see, I did not know that! In accordance with your suggestion and argument, I have removed Chronology of Shakespeare's plays from Category:Chronology of Fictional Works. Joe Gatt (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: Unless I am misunderstanding you, I think that categories for lists of works by topic, because of their inherent affinity, should be grouped together as sub-categories within Category:Chronology of Fictional Works (or whatever it could be renamed to), provided that such lists are ordered chronologically. Joe Gatt (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunerstanding me. I'm saying that if "Chronology of Fictional Works" were to duplicate lists of works by topic, then there is no need for a category "Chronology of Fictional Works"; we would only need such a category if it were different from the existing category tree. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: Maybe you could provide concrete exemplars of such categories of lists of works by topic, such that I can better follow your line of reasoning, please ? Joe Gatt (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff in the category tree Category:Lists of media , such as Category:Lists of novels, etc -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: @Mark Marathon: @Lenticel: Categories such as Category:Lists of media, and Category:Lists of novels, are so broad that they serve no clear purpose. It seems that they incorporate every single media item, and every single novel, that was ever made, and what is the point of that? Please note Section 1.7 of this very log page, where the category Category:Honey plants was nominated for deletion precisely because likewise it was deemed as just too broad. On the other hand, Category:Chronology of Fictional Works has more definition because it is intended to cater for specific concepts, themes and ideas within fiction. Joe Gatt (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@67.70.35.44: Hi! I have looked at the lists of works by topic category tree more closely, and I think that I can understand the point now, which is, to have a category for lists (rather than for every single publication). Nonetheless, I have observed something in this category tree which, to my mind, is unharmonious, and consequentially, disconcerting, namely : some lists are chronological (like my category), some lists are ordered alphabetically by author, some are ordered alphabetically by title of work, and some lists even have no inherent order ! At least my category seeks to delineate the type of order (namely chronological) of the lists within it. Joe Gatt (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Might I suggest renaming this cateogory either to History of motifs used in fiction, or History of fiction, or The evolution of fiction? Joe Gatt (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably History of fiction since at least we have a main article to work with. --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cartoon Network programs

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:Cartoon Network original programs. Note that some post-renaming clean-up will be required. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Cartoon Network programs
Nominator's rationale: WP:TVINTL says that "Shows should be categorized by original broadcasters but not by other ones"; this category has been inconsistently applied both to original Cartoon Network series, and any other networks' series which have ever been repeated there (and it does seem to be a network that buys in a lot of old cartoons from other countries). Adding the word "original" (as is the case in, eg. Category:Adult Swim original programs) makes the category scope clearer for both readers and editors. McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I now realise this is reversing a category move from 2011 by an editor who wished to see all acquisitions included. The discussion had two in favour and two non-commital "I understand it's not meant to work like this" comments. The WP:TVINTL line about articles being "categorized by original broadcasters" may well post-date that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Genes mutated in mice

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 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given that there are projects aiming to create mutants for every single gene in the mouse genome, there is not much sense in having this as a separate category. Randykitty (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Those projects are some significant distance away from creating mutants for every single gene; I'd estimate less than 20% of all mouse genes have currently been knocked out. I think eventually these cats should be merged, but at the moment there are significant differences in the articles that are (and should be) in each. Though both are currently very underpopulated. Rockpocket 12:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put it this way: there are very few mouse genes for which no mutations are known. And some of the genes we now have in "mouse genes" have been knocked out (Fmr1 several times, for example). The difference is completely artificial. If you really want to make a difference, it should be between genes that are monomorphic in nature and those for which natural mutations are known. That's a difference that means something. But in a few years we'll have induced mutations for all mouse genes, so why make the distinction... --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that categorizing genes by species does not make much sense, so perhaps the whole gene categorization tree needs overhaul. As for a category "mutated genes", I think that the same logic I applied above to "mutated mouse genes" applies and don't find "mutated" very defining for any gene. Any gene will mutate, so if you look long and hard enough, each and every gene from each and every organism will eventually fall into that category. --Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Treaty of Tarawa

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains articles about the islands that were the subject of this treaty between the U.S. and Kiribati. Essentially, it's categorizing the islands because they were the subject of the treaty, which is an unusual way of categorizing geographical places. I think that this is probably overcategorization; the information is already contained in Treaty of Tarawa. As far as I know, there's nothing else that could be placed in this category to make it worthwhile. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:Honey plants

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) 04:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has no clear purpose. It seems that it should include virtually every flowering plant in the planet, since they almost all produce honey. It might be useful if it included only commercially important species, but since we've had editors try to add the entire 1,500+ species in the genus Acacia and the entire 4,000+ species in the Ericaceae it seems like it isn't that restrcited, which is also what's suggested by the title. I brought this up on the category talk page several months ago and the Beekeeping task force talk page, and nobody has responded. So it doesn't look like the article gets much attention anyway.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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