Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carlossuarez46 (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 5 May 2009 (→Category:Family comedy series: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2

Category:Family comedy series

Category:Family comedy series - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Much too subjective, category is defined as "Television shows that the whole family can enjoy." Whose job shall it be to determine that? What if my whole family doesn't like the same shows that your whole family does? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female characters in Shakespeare

Propose renaming Category:Female characters in Shakespeare to Category:Female Shakespearean characters
Nominator's rationale: Grammar, and also harmony with Category:Shakespearean characters. Biruitorul Talk 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cheers spin-offs

Category:Cheers spin-offs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another small category that cannot be expanded. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M*A*S*H spin-offs

Category:M*A*S*H spin-offs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no chance of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church building disambiguation pages

Propose renaming Category:Church building disambiguation pages to Category:Church disambiguation pages
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per discussion during a TfD (at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 2#template:church disambig), it seems helpful to broaden the category to cover other meanings of "church", such as denominations and congregations, as well as church buildings. doncram (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this in concept, but since "church" is an inherently Christian term, why not expand the scope to become Category:Religion disambiguation? Either way, the new term would be similar in concept to Category:Educational institution disambiguation. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I considered something like "Religion-related disambiguation". And there previously was a {{powdis}} for "places of worship" disambiguation with some similarly broader-than-just-Christian category associated (I don't know what was its exact category name). However, I think it is better to go with just "church" because it works better than any other alternative, for the significant set of more than 300 church disambiguation articles which mainly cover church buildings but also cover church congregations and church denominations that use exactly the same term, such as "First Presbyterian Church" is the name of many individual buildings and many congregations/church organizations that have had more than one building. To say "religion disambiguation" would seem not to apply to church buildings. To say "religion-related" is vague and doesn't well serve the core content of church buildings. I don't think "religion disambiguation" is exactly analogous to "educational institution disambiguation", it is more akin to too-broad "education disambiguation". Perhaps "religious institution disambiguation"? But, that would seem to exclude buildings separate from the institutions. Many places named First Presbyterian Church are buildings that are no longer churches, and even current church buildings are buildings, not institutions.
Also, I tried to think of any term like "places of worship disambiguation" which would include synagogues, temples, mosques, and other non-Christian buildings. But, "places of worship" does not seem to allow for denominations or congregations, it seems to be just about the places. I don't want to set up a difficult to manage term, where editors would be deleting one article named "Bethel Baptist Church" because it is a denomination not a place, or deleting another article "Bethel Baptist Church" because it is a about a congregation that met for awhile in one building and then move to another building, while other articles named "Bethel Baptist Church" are buildings that might or might not be current churches. For disambiguation purposes, it is best to have every article about "Bethel Baptist Church" in the same disambiguation article. And, it seems confusing to instruct editors that it is okay to have "places of worship disambiguation" category apply to the disambiguation page, when it applies to some but not all of the entries in the disambiguation page. To wit, you, Orlady, yesterday deleted "church building disambiguation" from a disambiguation page that included some church buildings and some denominations. I re-added the category. I presume you did so because you thought the category/description did not correspond closely enough to the majority of items in the disambiguation page. If the category were "church disambiguation", I believe you would have already agreed that was fine, and would not require extensive discussion that it is okay to have a category/description which covers only some of the entries on the disambiguation page.
I am not aware of any phrase which clearly includes temples, mosques, and other places of worship but which does not seem to exclude denominations and congregations, which, for Christian churches, often have the same names as individual buildings.
For synagogues, temples, and mosques, I do also work on disambiguation pages and/or set index articles to disambiguate them (for example, see my recent work discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Temple Israel set index article and disambiguation ). But I think these are fewer articles on non-Christian places of worship. I believe it is very striking that there is only one mosque in the United States that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (this was studied out in discussion at wt:NRHP, now archived). There simply are few articles about mosques in the English language wikipedia, while there are many articles about historic Christian churches, and the frequency of disambiguation pages on Christian church buildings/congregations/denominations reflects that. When there are more articles about mosques, then eventually it will make sense to create a category of mosque disambiguatation pages. There are more articles about synagogues than about mosques now, and i don't know how many synagogue disambiguation pages there are, but I believe it probably is still not yet appropriate to create a "synagogue disambiguation pages" category (because i think there are too few). To me it is obviously time already to create the church disambiguation page category due to the number of them. I don't know whether or not it is acceptable or good to add any synagogue disambiguation pages into it, defining church very broadly, but that is a separate question on whether or not there should be a church disambiguation category.
So, I think "church disambiguation" hits it exactly the best, and especially for tagging the many disambiguation pages that have the word "Church" or "Cathedral" or "Chapel" or other usually-Christan names in their title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am one who first alerted Doncram to the fact that there are some "church" disambiguation pages that focus on denominations, not individual congregations and their buildings, I don't think that the forced marriage of the two types of disambiguation pages is a happy one. As Doncram notes, "yesterday" (give or take a day in Wikipedia time) I removed the "church building disambiguation" templates that he had recently placed on Church of Christ and Church of God and restored the generic "disambiguation" templates to both pages. Both of these articles are best understood as set index articles because they contain some discussion and explanation of the relationships between the listed denominations -- in fact, a few hours later I replaced {{disambig}} with {{SIA}} on both articles. I was very uncomfortable seeing that pages about several Christian denominations were now misleadingly labeled as being about "church buildings." While it is incorrect to label denominations as buildings, it is not incorrect to label a page that disambiguates local churches as a disambiguation page, so I concluded that the generic disambiguation statement should be fully acceptable for Church of Christ, a page disambiguating roughly 25 denominations plus five individual local churches. (Church of God does not list any local churches, so the "church building disambiguation" template was totally inaccurate there.)
Seeing the incongruity of combining denominations with local churches on Church of Christ, I think it is best to keep the two types of disambiguation separate, for example as Church of Christ (for the set index article about denominations) and Church of Christ (place of worship) (for disambiguating individual local churches). --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ensuring my signing of my comment above. You did point out the mix of denom and buildings in those examples but i have encountered that before, too. I accept your edits to drop the church building category were reasonable, given its name then/still, and "disambig" is not wrong. To likewise explain my edits there, i was anticipating a renaming of this category, and I do want for the category to include those articles so I don't want them lost by having the category stripped out. I believe your reaction prompting category removal was to incongruity which would be gone if the name for the category was "church disambiguation pages", as proposed. Your initial and following statements seem in general supportive of the rename to church disambiguation pages. To clarify, is that correct?
I'm not sure this needs to be part of this CfD, but I don't necessarily agree that Church of Christ and Church of God should be SIA pages. Some extra stuff in them might best be stripped out, but i think they are basically disambiguation pages and are needed as such, i think. For transparency, let me say i've announced this CfD and the SIA vs. dab issue for those two, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#church disambiguation CfD, and church dabs vs. SIA pages, and I will ask the same TfD participants as i've asked before, to comment here, too. doncram (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, there are excellent reasons for these to be set index articles. Church of God, in particular, is not merely a case of multiple organizations with similar names, but rather is a situation in which a series of schisms within a group called "the church of god" (I use lower-case here to avoid implying that I am referring to any one group) have resulted in a large number of groups that consider themselves to be the true church of god (or "original church of god", "the church of god", etc.), have sued one another over naming rights, and have adopted names for purposes of disambiguation that are still rather ambiguous (for example, both Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee) have their world headquarters in Cleveland, Tennessee -- a small city that is home to six distinct "church of god" denominations, but a false geographic location is used to disambiguate them). To further complicate matters, variations of the "church of god" name have been adopted by multiple groups that have given rise to schismatic denominational families, so that not all "church of god" denominations are related. Inclusion in the Church of God article of information regarding the theological and historical relationships between the various "church of god" groups is an extremely useful encyclopedic element that would not be possible in a standard disambiguation page. If anything, the information content in that article should be expanded, not trimmed away. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Convince me that since church is ambiguous, we need to create an ambiguous category. Currently this category has over 300 entries and has a wonderful parent of Category:Church buildings. I fail to see how the proposed rename helps in any way for this as a building category. Expanding the scope and including other stuff would make the category confusing and likely useless. Why not simply create new categories for the other stuff? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the semi-ambiguous or simply broader term "church disambiguation" seems to closely fit the nature of the disambiguation pages themselves, which include buildings, congregations, and denominations all having the same name, like "Bethel Church". There are many articles which are clearly about the church as a group/congregation, and not about the building. I think it is more useful to use the term church. See also my response to Orlady above. I hear where you are coming from, trying to slot this nicely into a parent category, but that simply may not be possible. Certainly "church disambiguation" and "church buildings" categories can both fit nicely into some broader category, like "religion-related". However, the most important thing here is to make a category that is useful to readers and editors who are working with the 300 plus articles that it naturally covers, not to make the name fit into your somewhat faraway categorizing framework.
If one were to create "church denomination disambiguation", "church congregation disambiguation", and "church building disambiguation", it would be extremely difficult to attach the correct categories to disambiguation pages. Many pages would deserve 2 or more such categories, and there would be disagreements and category removals.
It is indeed hard to judge whether many articles about a given church are about the building or about the congregation. And whether the article is more about the building or more about the congregation can easily be changed by editing. For example, Trinity Church (Elmira, New York), is one article in some flux. The congregation has existed for 175 years and the church webpage is mostly about the congregation. The building has not existed that long, but is what is listed on the U.S. NRHP. And material from the church's webpage is getting swapped in and out of the article. I wouldn't know how to categorize it. It is obviously a church though, leaving the word church deliberately a bit ambiguous.
Also, this category rename is to support including church disambiguation as a type within {{disambig}}, see Template talk:Dabcat#church disambig and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#template:church disambig. I don't know if it is even possible to use {{disambig}} with more than one type indicated, which would be needed for many of these disambiguation pages if there are church building, church denomination, and church congregation types defined.
Finally, I apologize to you that this in-flux discussion is now at CfD, given unresolved, related TfD and open request for an edit-protected change to {{Disambig}}'s side Dabcat template. I wanted to close the TfD first, and then do a comprehensive CfD, and only then open a request at Dabcat. But another editor and Orlady opposed closing the TfD and relisted it, and then the other editor also opened the edit-protected change request. I think the only way to settle all three of these open discussions cleanly is to go with "church disambiguation pages" as a category. doncram (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is some sound logic for the proposed rename, I'm likely to strongly oppose the rename. Despite your extensive comments above, I'm not seeing a case that the current category is not correctly named. You may be making a case that some of the articles are not correctly classified, but that is a different issue. The logic that having 3 categories would make it more confusing to classify an article does not hold up. If you cram all of this into one unmanageable category, what purpose does the category serve? At that point you may as well simply delete the thing. Templates can be changed to support the discussion categories as needed. So the presence or absence of support in the current templates should not be an issue in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, more specifically then. I did not create the category, but my own narrow interest is to have a category that groups together all the church disambiguation pages having some NRHP-listed church building items listed on them. I want to be able to go to these disambiguation pages and maintain and build them and repair damage occasionally inflicted by disambiguation page editors who interpret wp:MOSDAB differently or who simply march to a different drummer. These disambiguation pages will naturally include items that are identically named denominations and congregations, which is fine by me. That's where i personally am coming from.
The current category "church building disambiguation pages" is not correctly named well enough because even experienced editors like Orlady will react (as she did) that it is not a close enough description of the content of a given disambiguation page having some items about denominations and churches, and so she strips it out. That loses the battle for me: the category no longer covers all dab pages having church buildings. Perhaps a longer name, like "disambiguation pages having one or more items that are church buildings" or "disambiguation pages including church buildings" would work for convincing her not to strip the category off, but I think she would have other objections to the longer title. That suffices to show that the current title does not work, I think. Do you see that, and/or could you suggest a different title that would work? "Church disambiguation pages" is simple and works, however, I think.
Further, a second way the title doesn't work well, is that for many of these church disambiguation pages it is not immediately obvious whether the listed items are church buildings or congregations or both equally or what. For many entries like "Bethel Church (Town, State)", you cannot tell from the title whether it is about the congregation or about a building. It can be difficult, even reading the article, to figure out which it is about. It is better for the relevance of the category to be clear from the names of the articles listed in the disambiguation page. It would probably violate wp:MOSDAB guidelines and it is impractical to require all church disambiguation page items to include enough text to define whether the item is about a building or a congregation or equally about both or what. I want a category whose applicability is practical to manage by, for the most part, just reviewing what appears in these 300 or so disambiguation pages.
By the way, a different option which was defeated before by deletion of the category and/or template was to have some kind of NRHP category and/or template for disambiguation pages. The NRHP-ness of a church place is secondary to it being a church, first, so I don't too much object. Anyhow, I have given two reasons why the current category name does not work. How do you respond to that, please? doncram (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please find the previous CfD deletion of the category named exactly or very much like that? It would seem relevant to consider if you are making that as a proposal. Also, what about my points explained above that there are Christian denominations and congregations also covered on the church disambiguation pages, which would seem to be disallowed by places of worship disambiguation? doncram (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November_3#Category:Place of worship disambiguation? That's the most recent relevant CfD that I can find, and it closed as "keep all." --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Added: More recently, there were several discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17; they led to renaming Category:Churches to Category:Church buildings. A couple of months thereafter (in January 2009), Category:Place of worship disambiguation was deleted because it was empty (I haven't found out what led to emptying the category). --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those previous discussions & decisions. About emptying the powdis category, checking history of a few of the same dab pages we are discussing now yields edits like this by Remember the dot and this labelled just "cleanup" by Remember the dot. We would not be here now if the category had not been systematically stripped and then deleted, I think mostly by Remember the dot. Does Remember the dot need to be invited to comment here. Note, it is also Remember the dot opened the TfD to delete church disambig which started all this up again, but has not commented since giving an opening stating "Having a separate disambiguation template for churches is pointless and confusing." I don't know how to deal with that. Is there some way to get Remember the dot, as a key person involved, to acknowledge some purpose of having church disambig or powdis or whatever. doncram (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling in the additional details on the removal of {{powdis}}. I see that you've invited Remember the dot to this discussion -- good move! --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Places of worship disambiguation (or a variant thereof). Congratulations to Alansohn for hitting the nail on the head with his suggestion. This rename would resolve my unease with the emphasis on "buildings" in the current name (I think that persons of faith would be insulted by the suggestion that their religious institutions are merely "buildings") and my vague perception that, to be most useful, the category ought not to be limited to Christian topics. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family Ties spin-offs

Category:Family Ties spin-offs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no possibility of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I missed this in my comments above on other spinoff categories. Given the small number of spinoffs and the rather dim possibility of any more being added, the category does not aid navigation, though we should ensure that all of these are in the parent Category:Television spin-offs.
  • Delete - small category with virtually no possiblity of expansion. Robofish (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV series categories

Category:All Saints (TV series) - Template:Lc1
Category:The Avengers (TV series) - Template:Lc1
Category:Batman: The Brave and the Bold - Template:Lc1
Category:Beverly Hills, 90210 - Template:Lc1
Category:The Biggest Loser - Template:Lc1
Category:The Bold Ones - Template:Lc1
Category:Bozo television series - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - small eponymous categories for TV shows with little or no likelihood of expansion. In each case the lead article serves for navigation and many of the series have templates linking the material as well. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the Avenfgers one - I found one uncategorised article on an episode, and it's plausible that more episodes could have articles, either now or in the future. No opinion on the others. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is quite possible that there will eventually be more articles, including ones for each of the major characters--that is certainly the way the discussions at WP:FICT have been heading. DGG (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland)

Propose renaming Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) to Category:The Troubles
Nominator's rationale: We currently have no category called Category:The Troubles, and the relevant article is at The Troubles, not The Troubles (Northern Ireland). As such, in the spirit of WP:2DAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the category should match the article and be under the undisambiguated title. Skomorokh 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cfd of 13 Feb 2009. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Snappy (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Is - Do Not Rename - Nothing has changed since the discussion in the previous CFD, which resulted in the current name. In addition, the nominator's rationale completely overlooks the fact that there is a DAB page for Troubles (disambiguation), which makes it possible to dispense with the "Northern Ireland" identifier in the article's name. Category names, by contrast, must have sufficient intrinsic clarity to stand by themselves without the benefit of a DAB page. Cgingold (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now (i.e. oppose renaming) I can see some good arguments both for disambiguating and for using the undisambiguated title: disambiguation is nearly always a Good Thing[TM], but the other topics listed at Troubles (disambiguation) seem to me to be very much less notable. So I'm basically neutral for now, but if this category is to be renamed, then its sub-categories should also be reamed for consistency, and I would oppose any solution which breaks the consistency between this category and its sub-cats. It's also a pity that the nominator did not find the previous CFD beforehand, but it would helpful for Skomorokh to explain why xe thinks that it needs to be overturned so quickly.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Indigenous Australian Players of Australian Rules Football

Category:Current Indigenous Australian Players of Australian Rules Football - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Following on from this CfD, there also seems to be no need for this category to exist when he have Category:Indigenous Australian players of Australian rules football, which is not even close to being classed as overpopulated. Jevansen (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Newlyn Society of Artists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete Empty cat created by nom who has now created Category:Newlyn School of Artists. Salix (talk): 17:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the Newlyn Society of Artists - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Actually meant Newlyn School not Society Teahot (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2009 (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:Turkish Americans

Propose renaming Category:Turkish Americans and Category:Turkish-Americans to Category:American people of Turkish descent.
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Recent (2 years) practice specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage — for example Category:American people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines descent.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indochine songs

Propose renaming Category:Indochine songs to Category:Indochine (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are not Vietnamese songs, these are songs by the band named "Indochine". 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NB in English Indochina is the geographical term; "Indochine" is borrowed from French, so in fact there is no ambiguity HeartofaDog (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have seen "Indochine" used in English. Aside from that there's also a film called Indochine, so it can also be confused with songs from the soundtrack of the film "Indochine" 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intersex activists

Category:Intersex activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American intersex activists

Suggest merging Category:American intersex activists to Category:both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge - the single item in this category can reside quite comfortably in the currently empty Category:Intersex activists. No need to subdivide one article on the basis of nationality. Otto4711 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caves in Honduras

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: already deleted G7. Salix (talk): 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Caves in Honduras - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Created category with incorrect wording -- should have been "Caves of" rather than "Caves in". Category:Caves of Honduras now created. Fattonyni (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip Cgingold; I was using a Twinkle tab to mark for deletion, I thought it would choose the best tag for the situation -- I guess not though :-) Fattonyni (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_2&oldid=287992953"