Category:Primates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --
Kbdank71
15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Primates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to
Category:Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, for conformity with the article
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, which appears to be the title by which these people are best known.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom; the Patriarch is ex officio "Primate" or Head of his church, so a "Primate" category is not needed. Having said that, really the far larger number of holders of this office in
Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople (seems to be 111, vs 5 here - both out of a possible 280 I think) should be gathered into the renamed category, which could then be a sub-category of that, like the Armenian & Latin Patriarchs. There is also a case for using "Greek" rather than "Ecumenical" - less formally correct, but possibly clearer & commoner. At the moment this category is not even a sub-cat of
Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople - a typical piece of pastorwaynery. Nom does not address the issue of the American sub-cat - are these guys Heads of a church? I suspect not.
Johnbod
23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I think here Pastor Wayne's idea (not fully realised) is that we have 2 (at least) sorts of primate of the Greek Orthodox Church, namely Patriarchs of Constantinople and the likes of
Demetrios, Archbishop of America, primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Exarch of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (I quote). So we have an umbrella super-cat, primates of the Greek Orthodox Church (say), with 2 subcats, the American ones and the Ecumenical Patriarchs of C (say). I'm fairly sure there are Greek Orthodox churches in Africa too so there may be more exarchs.
-- roundhouse
02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment
Per Johnbod, I think it would be better for the new name to be the new name being
Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, which is clearer ("Ecumenical" has a different meaning in English); however the article would need to be renamed as well.--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Previous comment withdrawn per Dr S's observation about the
official website for the patriarchate. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mid-Continent Conference men's basketball tournament venues
Category:Fictional time travelers
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete and protect --
Kbdank71
15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Fictional time travelers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Speedy delete and salt recreation. (See previous CfD.
[1]) Too many characters have traveled through time for this to be a defining quality. For example, 99.99% of all superheroes have traveled through time at some point.
Doczilla
22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: The category must be used with the restrictions explained in it, wich make sure that the characters in it will truly belong in it. You won't find Batman or Iron Man mixed in it by following such rules, only characters really related to time travel stuff.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Perón (
talk •
contribs)
- Speedy Delete per "Recreation of deleted material" criteria.
Tarc
02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I don't think that criteria applies, because this category is not equal than the deleted one. That one allowed any character that would have made any time travel. This one has more strict rules to keep only characters really related with the theme of time travel, rules that come precisely from the debate that deleted the category that had no restrictions
Perón
03:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, speedy applies. It's the same category regardless of a difference in description. The poorly writtern criteria are arbitrarily chosen. Why use those as opposed to other criteria for defining time travelers? Categories get deleted for arbitrary criteria.
Doczilla
05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Let's see if I understood. First it was deleted because it did not include X and Y criteria explained in the debate, and because the lack of such criteria made the category useless because of being so generic. So, I recreate the category but making such X and Y criteria explicit. It is requested to be deleted again, because X and Y criteria are "arbitrary". But then, if they are arbitrary, why was the category deleted the first time?
Perón
18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Some categories just don't work. There are some categories that simply cannot be defined objectively enough to allow in encyclopedic content. Read the previous CfD. We didn't just discuss the lack of criteria. We also discussed the problems inherent in trying to establish any criteria.
Doczilla
04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete and block - Fictional characters travel through time so often that this is not a defining characteristic. The inclusion criteria written in the text of this category can always be changed later, so the category could become just like the previously-deleted category. Moreover, the inclusion criteria are not only subjectively chosen but also poorly written. This recreation does not work.
Dr. Submillimeter
09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment a restriction of scope would solve the problem, as for some fictional characters, time travel *is* the defining characteristic. ie.
Time Tunnel,
Doctor Who, HG Well's The Time Machine. This would differ from time displacement being the key background / backstory element that introduces the setting. ie
Planet of the Apes,
Buck Rogers, Woody Allen's Sleeper,
Rip Van Winkle. Or the insignicant TV episode with time travel in it (ie. Star Trek)
132.205.44.134
22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - These "restriction in scope" ideas do not work in practice. For example, no one could agree on who belonged in a "fictional characters who can produce/manipulate radiation" category, partly because of interpretation problems. Whenever the category was created, it was a mess. The category was always deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry, not to hijack this nomination, but I have to object to that characterization of the radiation category. The people who were using the category had a pretty good handle on who should be in it. It was the people who commented at CFDs who kept tossing out bizarre examples like "a sheet absorbs light so it manipulates radiation."
Otto4711
01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as recreation, and as non-defining.
Carlossuarez46
16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Anglican archbishops in Ireland
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --
Kbdank71
15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
These were listed in the speedy section, and as no objections were lodged there, I moved them to Working.
User:Cyde objected, so I'm moving them here. I have no opinion on whether these should change, except that the change matches the
Spaghetti Western article title.--
Mike Selinker
18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment looks like a simple capitalization change which is a valid reason. In no details on the reason for the objection were provided or are not provided here, I'd say close this and put it back in the work queue.
Vegaswikian
19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support renaming, but oppose speedy. If they were challenged, they need to go through CfD. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry, I may not have been clear. There were no objections during the speedy process. Only when I moved them to the Working page did Cyde raise his objection, which I thought was a good enough reason to move it here for a full discussion. It's not a speediable nomination now.--
Mike Selinker
20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom
Johnbod
00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy rename
Greg Grahame
01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose renaming This actually gets into an interesting naming-convention question: under what circumstances is "western" a
proper noun (
proper adjective, actually, but I won't quibble) for the purposes of
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)? I suspect that it comes down to personal inclination; I know that I have always seen "Western" capitalised in the context of politics, culture and religion (i.e., as opposed to Communism, non-Euro-American culture, and Taoism or Buddhism), but in relation to the literary and cinematic genre, the trend appears to have been to decapitalise the word. Since the general culture is equivocal on the matter and Wikipedia naming conventions express strong preference for lowercase after the first word, it seems best to leave the titles as they are. --
7Kim
22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Perebourne
17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose rename — Per the Manual of style, we don't capitalize words in titles without good reason (e.g. if they are a proper noun). I don't think "Spaghetti western" is a fully qualified proper noun, so I don't think that "western" should be capitalized. --
Cyde Weys
19:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Tonight Show hosts
Category:Distance education schools
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename.
the wub
"?!"
11:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Distance education schools to
Category:Distance education institutions
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, The current name only makes sense to Americans. Most of these places are only schools in the American sense where "School" is used for all educational institutions, not in the rest-of-the-World, where "school" refers to places where the under 18s are educated.
Postlebury
17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Dual License
Category:Patriarchs of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --
Kbdank71
15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Patriarchs of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church to
Category:Czechoslovak Hussite Church bishops
- Merge, another pair of duplicate categories. So far as I can see surmise from the little material on wikipedia, the modern
Hussite Church appears to have bishops overseen by a patriarch. Since only have two articles on any of them (both patriarchs), I suggest that we do not need both categories.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, that's my point.
Johnbod
19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is a current patriarch
Tomáš Butta + at least 1 non-patriarchal bishop ("In 2000, Catholic representatives attended the consecration of Jana Silerova as the Hussite Church’s first woman bishop", from
Czechoslovak Hussite Church). Given that there are 8 patriarchs to date, it seems unlikely that navigation will pose much of a problem in the next few decades. (The patriarchs could reasonably be placed in some overarching Primates category as well as the suggested Bishops one.)
-- roundhouse
08:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The best solution would probably to create a list of the patriarchs to place in
Category:Primates (religion) or an appropriate sub-cat. I think that this sort of listification could be followed for many other small primates categories. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Presto's! Barney & Friends
- 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: redirected to Redirects for discussion. Please see the discussion there.--
Mike Selinker
17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
As a heads up since these are categories, I've nominated the last "Natives of" categories (all redirects)
at the Redirects for Discussion page. This covers
category:Natives of Arkansas,
category:Natives of Beijing,
category:Natives of Berlin,
category:Natives of Cape Town,
category:Natives of Danzig,
category:Natives of Gdańsk,
category:Natives of Leicester,
category:Natives of Moscow,
category:Natives of Munich,
category:Natives of Paris,
category:Natives of Pretoria,
category:Natives of Reading,
category:Natives of São Paulo (city),
category:Natives of Sao Paulo state,
category:Natives of Southampton,
category:Natives of Strasbourg,
category:Natives of the West Midlands,
category:Natives of the Western Isles, and
category:Natives of Warsaw. Please comment there on whether you'd like to see the last of these categories go away.--
Mike Selinker
14:36, 4 June 2007 (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:Die Hard locations
Category:Famous Chess Enthusiasts
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete.
the wub
"?!"
11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Famous Chess Enthusiasts (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Enjoyment of chess is a "non-defining or trivial characteristic" per
WP:OCAT. I see no reason to categorize people by their favorite hobbies.
szyslak
09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Any category that includes the word "famous" needs at least a rename, and I think that pretty much any category of "Enthusiasts" is going to be overcategorization per nom. Note that we don't have
Category:Enthusiasts.
Xtifr
tälk
10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - This seems overly-vague. Who could be considered "famous", and what does it take to be called an "enthusiast"? Besides, categorization by hobby is generally a bad idea.
Dr. Submillimeter
13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Osomec
13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete vague category with two subjective words.
Doczilla
16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
Category:Chess players and its subcategories already contain articles about professional chess players, and amateur chess hobbyists should normally not be categorized this way.
Dugwiki
20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as non-defining like
Category:Manchester United supporters,
Category:People who prefer chocolate to vanilla,
Category:People who vacation in Florida, etc....
- Delete per nom.
Perebourne
17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep.
the wub
"?!"
11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:English comic operas to
Category:British comic operas
- Nominator's rationale: All of the operas in this new, reduced category premiered in London. English is ambiguous with the language, British is not, and since the category is lumping together operas in a British tradition, this is clearer.
Adam Cuerden
talk
08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- 'Note: the nominator failed to follow the steps at
WP:CFD#Procedure, so the category was not tagged. I have now tgaged it. --14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unless there is evidence that the genre is better known as "British comic opera". English is not the only adjective for a country which is the same as that for the associated language, and there are hundreds of other "English" categories. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Well, if you search under British comic opera on Google, the hits are more relevant. Frankly, either way it's a semi-neologism, since the term normally used is just "Comic opera".
Adam Cuerden
talk
15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It seems to me that G&S is a very English form of comic opera, and it seems inappropriate to use "British" when we mean something specifically English. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- This seems effectively to be argument that the adjective "English" should not be used for any category of things from England, only for English-language things. If that's the case, then the point should be considered by a wider group nomination of similar categories, such as
Category:English albums,
Category:English folk dance,
Category: English folk albums,
Category:English literary movements, and
Category:Category:English novels. Otherwise, a note in the category to explain its purpose would do fine. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I suppose, if properly noted, I could live with that, but it seems unduly ambiguous.
Adam Cuerden
talk
14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - "English" is the adjective for England as well as its language. If there is a desire to exclude American items, can this not be done by placing some text at the head of the Category page, defining its scope? The claim to change it to "British" implies that you believe there are significant numbers of Welsh or Scots comic operas which ought to be included. But should they not have their own category (if there are any)? I am proud to be an Englishman, and wish my own national culture to be preserved.
Peterkingiron
22:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mixed martial arts broadcasters
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep --
Kbdank71
14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Mixed martial arts broadcasters to
Category:Mixed martial arts announcers
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with the parent
Category:Sports announcers. The subcats of that category are a bit inconsistent, so perhaps as part of this nom we can decide on a standard.
Otto4711
01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose "Broadcasters" is version of English neutral, and "Announcers" is not. How about using broadcasters across the board, including
Category:Sports commentators and its subcategories?
Nathanian
02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree with above comment In UK English, a "broadcaster" is the TV station that transmits the footage
Bluap
02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And a person who does broadcasts. Do a google search for any prominent British person-who-does-broadcasts in the form XXXX YYYY broadcaster, and you will get plenty of hits.
Osomec
13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I assumed when I saw the category (in isolation from the rest of the subcats) that it was going to be for TV stations that broadcast MMA events. I would not object to a rename across the board to "commentators" to avoid the issue.
Otto4711
03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Announcers for sporting events also has issues since announcer is also used for the 'voice' at the event and has nothing to do with the person covering the event for broadcast.
Vegaswikian
05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Announcers is ambiguous.
Vegaswikian
05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Mixed martial arts announcers (preference) or
Category:Mixed martial arts commentators - "Broadcaster" may be used in UK and US English to refer to the TV stations rather than the people; this category clearly refers to the people, who are usually called "announcers" or "commentators". My preference is to rename the category using "announcers" to match the name of the parent category (
Category:Sports announcers), but commentators would also be acceptable. (If the whole category tree was nominated for renaming, I would support "commentators", as it seems more inclusive than "announcers".)
Dr. Submillimeter
07:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Announcers is U.S. centric. "Commentators" is also problematic, because it excludes presenters and summarisers, at least in British English.
Osomec
13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- At some point the hair is going to be split so fine that it will spontaneously discorporate to its component atoms. The difference between "commenting" on the action and "commentating" on it seems so slight as to be functionally meaningless. And what does a "summariser" summarize, if not the action? Isn't summarizing the action commenting on it? Or are they not allowed to use adjectives?
Otto4711
18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Reply: Apologies about that, for my part (can't speak for other project members). I concur with the overall quasi-consensus that this is an unsettled and thorny matter. I would suggest that the issue be raised again more generally at
WP:SPORT's talk page (i.e. as a need for consensus discussion on consistent naming of these categories, not as an FYI about a particular CfD), and that a pointer to this new discussion be placed at
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion so that input is broader. A pointer could also be put in the apropriate section of the Village Pump. The issue should be discussed and settled. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Articles which may be biased
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --
Kbdank71
13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Articles which may be biased to
Category:Wikipedia articles that may be biased
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are two minor changes proposed here. One is to change the word "which" to "that", which is simply better grammar. Also, "Articles" is somewhat vague and could apply to more things than this category is used for, so to make it clear that we're just talking about Wikipedia articles, we should add that into the category's name as well.
Cyde Weys
00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support rename but I really have to ask how this category is unique and useful. We already have a template for tagging articles whose neutrality is questioned. I would also support delete as redundant to the POV tag. "May be biased" is pretty dang vague.
Doczilla
06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Doczilla. There number of administrative categories is excessive. Some articles have several with closely related meanings.
Osomec
13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete admin categories are excessive and detract from the user experience (if we assume that categories are useful to it) moreover "may be biased" seems to contradict
WP:AWW why should we encourage that by naming categories in violation of that guideline?
Carlossuarez46
16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Alright, I'm also amenable to having this category deleted. I didn't even consider that an option at first. I agree that Wikipedia does have the tendency to go overbaord with administrative categories on articles. --
Cyde Weys
19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, but keep: It's useful to be able to collect all the articles with problems so that people looking for things to do can find and fix them. Of course, if the POV tag adds a different category, ignore this and delete.
Adam Cuerden
talk
00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.