Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MER-C (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 1 November 2019 (→Category:306 Records albums: relisted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< October 19 October 21 >

October 20

Category:Christianity and Paganism

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. @Bohemian Baltimore, Marcocapelle, and Place Clichy: Should the articles Christianity and Paganism and Christianity and Neopaganism be renamed as well? -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Paganism should not be capitalized. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2019 (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.

Distance education

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory is only content Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment attempt to bundle almost identical nominations made by the nominator. Note that there was traction in the previous discussion towards opening a discussion about the merge of all Distance education by country categories with Distance education institutions. @Rathfelder: it would really help if you created yourself bundled nominations using the very simple steps outlined at WP:CFD#HOWTO, or otherwise ask for help to do so. It goes nowhere to create so many simultaneous separate discussions on a virtually identical topic. @Marcocapelle and Oculi: as you expressed the same opinion several times on this page I took the liberty to copy and paste it here. @Trialpears, Dmehus, and Bearcat: pinging participants in open discussions about these same categories, many of which have requested a bundle nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont understand how making personal remarks helps the spirit of collaboration. The reason I didnt nominate them all together was that I was investigating possible content for these categories. I think they should be considered individually and I haven't nominated all the subcategories. If there are articles about distance education, as opposed to articles about institutions, I think we should keep them.Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to keep the categories if there are articles which are not about institutions. But if the consensus is that they should all go I wouldn't want to object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

Category:Rescue Me characters

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. MER-C 10:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I redirected all but one character per WP:BOLD, as most of the character pages were unsourced fancruft that had been utterly untouched since 2007 and gave no out-of-universe notability. Tommy Gavin can probably stay since he's the protagonist and his article has secondary sources (which were conspicuously absent from the rest). Other than that we have only the List of Rescue Me characters page and a bunch of redirects, which per WP:OCAT is just not enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:32, 20 October 2019 (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:Tango in Argentina

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Category:Tango in Argentina

Category:Online schools in Wisconsin

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. MER-C 09:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Only 31 in the whole USA. Rathfelder (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2019 (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:306 Records albums

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Category:306 Records albums

Category:Chulalongkorn family

Nominator's rationale: "Chulalongkorn" is not recognised as the name of any family by any reliable source. The title is merely descriptive, and changing the word order would make the fact clearer. (An alternative suggestion is to upmerge to Category:Chakri dynasty and Category:Chulalongkorn, the latter of which has been recently created.) Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodist church buildings

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Denied speedy (@Armbrust and Laurel Lodged: pinging contributors). Categories have identical scope and much overlapping content and should be merged whatever the outcome. I am pretty neutral towards which name should be picked, and the churches vs. church buildings debate has never given very clear consensus in the past. Parent Category:Protestant churches by denomination has a mixboth: Anglican, Brethren, Mennonite, Reformed and United Protestants use church buildings, while Christian Science, Congretional, Episcopal, Evangelical, Lutheran, Moravian, Presbyterian, Seventh-day Adventist, Swedenborgian use churches. However, I note that churches has the disadvantadge of inviting users to add articles about full-fledged church organizations at large, which should be better placed in Methodist denominations, such as the Protestant Methodist Church in Benin (90,000 members, 420 congregations) or the Free Church of Tonga (congregations in 6 countries). I therefore prefer Option A. Place Clichy (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion

*Option A to make it less tempting for editors to add congregations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option D Changing my vote. Retain both. Create a third cat called Category:Methodist congregations. Let both this and the buildings be children of Churches which becomes a container . Laurel Lodged (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really the issue here. The ambiguity brought by "churches" was that users added large church bodies with hundreds of congregations. There can legitimately be a single category for both single-building congregations and single-congregation buildings (excluding large church organizations). The structure you are suggesting was afaik never put forward by anyone in any of the churches/church buildings discussions. It is true that some articles are mostly focussed on the congregation where that is the more notable element of the two (very grossly, my feeling is that it happens more often in a New World / Protestant / congressionalist context) while others focus more on the building (symetrically, in branches of Christianity following episcopal polity i.e. Catholic, Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran etc., individual congregations or parishes have little autononous existence and would rarely be notable on their own, while church buildings are often monuments in high regard). However, this is just very much a way to write an article about essentially the same topic. Splitting building-oriented and congregation-oriented articles in separate categories brings more problems than it would improve things. Place Clichy (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I don't see the problem that you see in Option D. Firstly it's likely that the thrust of an article will be either building or congregation, in which case categorisation is easy. If it's both, then use both categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems very unpractical to me to maintain a three-leg structure for churches/church buildings/congregations. But mostly, it would be even stranger to have this structure for Methodist categories only. They are currently the only ones suffering from this duplication. Place Clichy (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stools with 3 legs are the most stable. If other denominations suffer from the same problem, I'm happy to replicate the structure for them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do not address the fact that the "Methodist congregations" categories are currently about church buildings. This does not help in making the case for splitting content in separate subcategories. Place Clichy (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A -- We had a similar nom a little while back concerning churches /buildings in general, which I think was resolved this way. The problem is that the churches includes "congregations" subcat, but most of the content seems to be about ones meeting in buildings, so that these can also be merged to the sibling buildings cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional wrestling navigational boxes named after people

Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category are not just navboxes named after people, but navboxes about people. Compare to Category:Actor navigational boxes‎, instead of Category:Performing arts navigational boxes named after people. All 12 individuals in this category are professional wrestlers, but some also held other roles (e.g. promoter, etc.), so a more generic title could be appropriate. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:*Treker) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wreckers (Transformers)

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of a minor fictional aspect. The characters are present elsewhere in the category structure so no need to merge. TTN (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:44, 20 October 2019 (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:Emperors of Destruction

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. MER-C 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of a minor fictional aspect. It's just a title rather than actual status, so upmerging to "Fictional emperors and empresses" seem improper. TTN (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:44, 20 October 2019 (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.

Template:Nbl-stub

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. MER-C 09:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused, non-standardised stub template (doesn't use {{asbox}}), with no associated stub category. There are no stub templates for any other sport tournaments. SD0001 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:44, 20 October 2019 (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:The Pink Panther characters

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary two article category TTN (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_20&oldid=924026361"