< October 3 October 5 >

October 4

Category:Members of the Cistercian Order by nationality

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. I note that this also matches the parent category Category:Cistercians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why use five words whn one will do? cf Category:Benedictines by nationality. Jsmith1000 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 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.

Survey regarding Category:Bishops

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: administrative close: no additional comments for over a month. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an official nomination, I'd rather first find out what you think of it. The issue is the following. Currently the far majority of final rungs in the Bishops category have the format of Denominational bishops of diocese. So the final rungs are based on two characteristics, denomination and diocese. However, at the top level they come from three branches of the Bishops tree, namely:

  1. Category:Bishops by diocese
  2. Category:Bishops by country (and also Category:Bishops by continent which quickly dissolves in the country branch)
  3. Category:Bishops by denomination

Between top level and final rungs there are a large number of container categories which are all possible crossings of these three main branches. Since the final rungs have only two characteristics, I would expect that one of the three branches is redundant.

In addition, please note that both diocese and country are both geographical characteristics. Rather than have 'by diocese' crossed with the countries and denominations, it makes more sense to have the separate dioceses simply as the next geographical layer after country. In other words, I think that the whole 'by diocese' branch is redundant and that all 'by diocese' container categories can be upmerged to the category with the same name however without 'by diocese'.

Note, for a full overview of the 'by diocese' categories, see Category:Categories by diocese.

Please provide me with your thoughts about this before I would (perhaps unnecessarily) start tagging dozens of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No I admit that there's also nationality involved in another part of the tree but that's really entirely independent from the above.
Example, let's take Category:Bishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic) as the final rung. If ignoring a specialty in England (a split between pre- and post-reformation bishops) then you can get there now via the four following routes:
  1. Country branch: Bishops by country - Bishops in England - RC bishops in England - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
  2. Denomination branch: Bishops by denomination - RC bishops - RC bishops by country - RC bishops in England - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
  3. Diocese x denomination branch: Bishops by diocese - RC bishops by diocese - RC bishops in Europe by diocese - RC bishops in UK by diocese - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
  4. Diocese x country branch: Bishops by diocese - European bishops by diocese - UK bishops by diocese - RC bishops in UK by diocese - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
Note that all categories mentioned, except for the final rung, are container categories! (except maybe for some incidentally 'lost' single articles, so on behalf of those lost articles I would rather propose an upmerge instead of a delete)
So there's four routes. However, the final rung is defined based on two characteristics, hence you only need two routes as well. The latter two routes are redundant, and in the first two routes you wouldn't necessarily need RC bishops in England by diocese as an in-between layer.
Hope this makes it a bit clearer! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 4 October 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:Time Quartet

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Time Quintet. Not eligible for speedy renaming as I only just shortened the main article name from A Wrinkle in Time Quintet. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American politicians‎

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not rename. I also note that the category was not tagged with Template:Cfr during this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is proposed so as to better satisfy WP:AT: "The title indicates what the article is about", and also in view that the main article is entitled United States and it is just one of many countries that constitute The Americas.
The text within Category:American politicians‎ reads: "This category lists politicians who are associated with the United States through nationality. Most, but not all, have been involved in the politics of the United States. For individuals who have held office in the political institutions of the U.S. (regardless of nationality), refer to Category:Political office-holders in the United States". America or American is not mentioned. Reference is also made that: "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Politicians of the United States. - WP:CRITERIA Consistency also applies.
The proposal is made in the context of Category:Politicians by nationality which mainly contains Demonym based category name. It also contains such categories directly based on the name of the countries as follows: Category:Antigua and Barbuda politicians, Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina politicians‎, Category:Cape Colony politicians‎, Category:Central African Republic politicians‎, Category:Cook Island politicians, Category:Dominican Republic politicians‎, Category:Guernsey politicians‎, Category:Jersey politicians‎, Category:Kiribati politicians‎, Category:Federated States of Micronesia politicians‎, Category:New Zealand politicians‎, Category:Papua New Guinean politicians‎, Category:Papua New Guinean politicians‎ and Category:Serbia and Montenegro politicians‎.
I will place a link from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics to this proposal due to its far reaching implications. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I am mainly working on the basis that "United States" is a more specific terminology while "American" terminologies come from a shared source. People may look, for instance, at an atlas they find that the titles written in the largest type size relate to North and South America and there find a country typically named the "United States". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified English Wikipedia uses a limited range of words so that new/emerging English speakers can follow the articles more easily and improve their skills. If someone is just coming into the English language, that is a good resource at least initially until they gain greater English fluency. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No and good point. However I don't personally think that this constitutes a requirement to use Category:American politicians‎ to any greater extent than it requires the use of Category:New Zealander politicians‎. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasoning as I think this move pushes the category outside the nationality scope (i.e. "United States" refers to a country, not a nationality). I actually think reorganising this tree on a country basis (rather than nationality of the politician) is a superior choice (see Category:Monegasque politicians which contains mostly French nationals). I would support that. SFB 19:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that a grammatically interested reader could decide for themselves whether they want to read the reference as an adjective or a noun. Either way it is a commonly used format as appearing in articles such as: United States Navy, United States Army, United States men's national soccer team, United States Census Bureau, United States Air Force, United States dollar, United States Congress, United States Armed Forces, and presumably many others.
It is also a format used in the following incomplete list: Jim Gibbons (U.S. politician), John Barrow (U.S. politician), George Allen (U.S. politician), Jim McGovern (U.S. politician), Mike Lee (U.S. politician), Joe Wilson (U.S. politician), Bobby Scott (U.S. politician), Jimmy Duncan (U.S. politician), David Price (U.S. politician), Ron Johnson (U.S. politician), Tom Price (U.S. politician), Ron Brown (U.S. politician), Jim Jordan (U.S. politician), John Fleming (U.S. politician), Richard Baker (U.S. politician), William Wilkins (U.S. politician), Bob Wilson (U.S. politician), Chris Collins (U.S. politician), There are also, according to my assessment, about half as many articles in an "Xx Xx (American politician)" format.
As mentioned it is also a format that parallels the likes of: Category:New Zealand politicians‎
In these contexts do you interpret United States as an adjective?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparative results beginning "American" are (as appearing):
American football, American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, American League, American Airlines, American Broadcasting Company, American University, American Idol, American literature, American Hockey League, American Jews, (pasted in square brackets and continued to cut and paste items from the search until brackets were filled). My view is that politicians fit in best with the "United States ..." format Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Number and what about consistency? Wikipedia articles on politics refer predominently to the United States. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is important, which is why this category should match all the others in Category:Politicians by nationality. Number 57 11:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"all"?
Category:Government in the United States is another container category for Category:American politicians. In Category:Government in the United States you will find many other related "United States" titled categories and articles. Article titles that you will find include: Federal government of the United States, United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, United States Domestic Policy Council, United States federal executive departments and President of the United States. There are a great many similarly titled articles here and further leads may also be found through Portal:Government of the United States. "United States politicians" seek office in the United States. All governmental references that I have seen use the wording "United States". Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you want to nitpick, "the vast, vast majority". Exceptions like "Politicians from Georgia (country)" are due to there being a clear potential for confusion with Georgia (state). Again, I go back to the issue of reasonableness. I also don't understand why you've just listed all those articles; the same is true for the articles in Category:Government of the United Kingdom and its sub cats (e.g. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), yet they quite happily sit alongside Category:British politicians. Number 57 17:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have read the thread and are familiar with contents presented.
To better represent the United Kingdom and the Politics of the United Kingdom in its connection to the Government of the United Kingdom, I would suggest the use of something like Category:United Kingdom politicians or Category:UK politicians, but that's a different topic. I have already mentioned this in the discussion re:Category:Baptist ministers from the United States‎‎‎ below.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:34, 5 October 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:Windmills in Anglesey

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 as nominated to both categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. There are only 4 articles about Windmills in all of Wales and this splits out 2 of them out for an island/county in Wales. There is definitely room for growth with new articles so no objection to recreating this later if needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills. – RevelationDirect (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey. This is best left as a stand alone subsection of Category:Buildings and structures in Wales by county Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:42, 4 October 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:Church

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. Given the nature of the discussion and the way things changed in the midst of it, I suggest a renomination and a fresh discussion. I might also suggest that a disambiguation category could be more appropriate here than a regular parent category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important note The contents of the category has completely changed since October 5. If you have commented before this change, please consider commenting again. If you haven't commented before, please ignore the first part of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: It only contains a disambiguation page and the child Category:Church buildings so it seems like this is a redundant categorization layer. The child category is already parented to Christian buildings as well, so there's nothing lost in the tree structure when deleting the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you agree on deleting this one as nominated, it may be better to post a separate nomination for Church buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not consider a nonexistent article as a reason to change the category tree. We sure don't need an article on "church culture". tahc chat 15:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assessment that church culture is not worth an article is pretty ignorant to say the least. SFB 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start of new discussion

I'm open to a possible rename for group of worshippers. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it was unused until 5 October, we just roll back to the prior situation, and delete this category. No renaming necessary. The current contents violated WP:SHAREDNAME anyways. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making that more clear. tahc chat 02:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that church buildings and denominations are any closer related than denominations and church music. This becomes arbitrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might think that church buildings and local churches organizations are quite different... but an articles on them-- St. Frank's Baptist Church tend to be about both the buildings and the organization. tahc chat 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this church article is redlinked so I can't check it. Generally I would expect that it won't occur too often that both building and community are a defining characteristic of a church article. I would rather expect an article about a community which also covers the building or vice versa. But if it happens that they're both a defining characteristic, I wouldn't mind having this church article in the both categories of buildings and communities. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Experience suggests otherwise. For the vast majority of churches, the building is foremost a gathering point of a congregation – that community is the only reason for its continued existence as a church. SFB 19:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes typicaly only one of the two is "noteworthy" of the article... but once there is the article there, it will cover both if at all possible. This not always obvious, but since the building and community share the one name, the location, etc., they are (99% of the time) quite relivant to each other. (BTW St. Frank's Baptist is hypothtical.) tahc chat 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Covering both aspects is something else than that both are a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 9 October 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:Baptist ministers from the United 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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naming aligned with other categories within Category:American Christian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: would you then propose renaming all "American" categories in which American is meant as an adjective of United States? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably most. The main article is the United States and this should the gravity of WP:UCRN and WP:CRITERIA, consistency. However, there are also individual articles to which WP:UCRN may give a stronger argument for the use of "American" in the title. I have just written a proposal to move Category:American politicians to Category:United States politicians in which rationales are presented more fully and plan to make a similar proposal on different grounds related to a move of Category:British politicians to Category:United Kingdom politicians
Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to think about it yet. What about WP:COMMONNAME, in the sense that 'everyone' uses American as adjective of United States and British as adjective of United Kingdom? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"United States" is the common name of the country also in accepted use in Wikipedia. "American" is widely used as suggested by the following searches (sorry for the presentation of hits data):
"American" is prevalent but I still has a potential problem of having a shared source. The use of the country's is less ambiguous. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see! And just to be sure, don't you feel for Category:United States‎ Baptist ministers? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It maintains the clarity of the current one, but I find it a very unidiomatic phrase. Google produces maybe just four unique instances of it on the internet[1]. SFB 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights Members

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) 02:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We normally categorize organizations by type of organization (e.g. in Category:Gun rights advocacy groups) rather than by what other organizations they are affiliated to. Otherwise it would lead to some articles being in many categories for WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics (note: several of the articles in ths category don't currently mention the IAPCAR except in a see-also list). If kept, this should be renamed to "...members" or to "Members of...".
For info: the list at International_Association_for_the_Protection_of_Civilian_Arms_Rights#Member_Organizations is much more comprehensive than the category. Lists also have the advantage that a note can be added if an organization de-affiliates. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 4 October 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:SVG logos associated with health care

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:SVG logos associated with health care to Category:Logos associated with health care
Nominator's rationale: This is the only "SVG <images> associated with <topic>" category in en wp. Afaik its the only "<format> <images> associated with <topic>" category in en wp. If the parent category ever becomes too big then it can be diffused by sub-topic (e.g. "Health care logos of the United States"). DexDor (talk) 04:44, 4 October 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:FOX animated universe

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) 02:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criteria, likely redundant of existing categories. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 04:20, 4 October 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:Balinese politicians

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for politicians in Bali and should be clarified that this doesn't relate specifically to Balinese people. SFB 00:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @SatuSuro: nomination now expanded as these categories are children of the "People from X" tree. SFB 11:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is a similar theme to the request for use of Category:United States politicians‎ which could also be worded: Category:Politicians from the ‎United States or Category:Politicians (United States). Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:58, 5 October 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