January 14
Category:Populist Party elected officials
disambiguating Category:Kumasi
- 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.
Kbdank71
18:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
(this is the only sub cat page of
Category:Kumasi)
- Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate where there is also
Kumasi Metropolitan District
Mayumashu (
talk)
23:35, 14 January 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:Large family cars
Category:Small family car
Category:TV word game shows
- 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.
Kbdank71
18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:TV word game shows (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete There doesn't seem to be any clear criterion as to what a "word game show" is. Is it for puzzle games like Wheel of Fortune or Lingo where you have to identify a word given certain letters, or word-association games like Pyramid or Password where you have to describe a word? Both are in this category. Perhaps ones such as Password et al. can be spun off into a new category,
Category:Word-association game shows or somesuch, as those have a more clearly-defined criterion.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells •
Otter chirps •
HELP)
20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It is basically for games where players guessed words from clues given by the host or their partners; and from letters that are shown. However, you're idea of giving word association game shows their own category is a nice one. So a split would be a better option.
Knowledgeman800 (
talk)
19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That's two different types of shows though, so maybe a split would be better. Word puzzle games like Wheel of Fortune, Lingo, $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime, Headline Chasers, Now You See It, etc. would be one thing, whereas word association games like Pyramid and Password would be another. That could work, I don't see as much ambiguity there.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells •
Otter chirps •
HELP)
19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete not useful or defining much less definable: Here's what the cat says it is: "These are game shows that allow TV contestants & the viewers at home to identify words from clues & categories." Sounds like all question and answer game shows, we get a "clue" from a "category" (like in Jeopardy, not in the category) and we try to "identify" the "words" to put in the form of a question. Sounds like the who wants to be a millionaire type games (where we figure out our "final answer" - which is words) and all
Category:Quiz shows.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:36, 16 January 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.
Vehicle registration plates by state
Category:Tanya Huff
Category:Vehicle registration plates of Tennessee
Category:Hindu worship
Category:Sikh practices
- 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.
Kbdank71
18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Sikh practices to
Category:Sikh behaviour and experience
- Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming
Editor2020 (
talk)
16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
- Yes, after a year of annoyance, hoping that someone would improve the inconsistent/confusing/unorganized category naming that currently exists in the religion categories, I have decided to get involved in Categories. Isn't trying to improve things kinda the point? The usage "foovian behaviour and experience" seemed to be an excellent format to use, as it is clear, consistent and will improve navigation. I was motivated to nominate these categories for renaming by
this comment--
Editor2020 (
talk)
16:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Did you mean "Keep" - ie, keep the cat as it is and reject the proposal?
HeartofaDog (
talk)
03:18, 20 January 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:Buddhist practices
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
Kbdank71
18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Buddhist practices to
Category:Buddhist behaviour and experience
- Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming
Editor2020 (
talk)
16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - "practice(s)" in the sense of the standard expression "religious practice" does not mean the same as "behaviour and experience". And to borrow the question from above, with what is it being standardised?
HeartofaDog (
talk)
01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Again to echo User:Occuli, you created all these yourself, so colour me unimpressed. The present name is short, straightforward and clear, which the proposed name is not. Standardisation by itself is not enough - it needs to make an improvement: what you propose, doesn't.
HeartofaDog (
talk)
03:22, 20 January 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:Bahá'í practices
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
Kbdank71
18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Bahá'í practices to
Category:Bahá'í behaviour and experience
- Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming.
Editor2020 (
talk)
16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - "practice(s)" in the sense of the standard expression "religious practice" does not mean the same as "behaviour and experience". And to borrow the question from above, with what is it being standardised?
HeartofaDog (
talk)
01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Again to echo User:Occuli, you created all these yourself, so colour me unimpressed. The present name is short, straightforward and clear, which the proposed name is not. Standardisation by itself is not enough - it needs to make an improvement: what you propose, doesn't.
HeartofaDog (
talk)
03:22, 20 January 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:Raëlian beliefs and practices
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep.
Kbdank71
18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices to
Category:Raëlian belief and doctrine
- Nominator's rationale: Standardize naming.
Editor2020 (
talk)
16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
:*With
Category:Religious behaviour and experience,
Category:Christian behaviour and experience,
Category:Hindu behaviour and experience,
Category:Islamic behaviour and experience,
Category: Jewish behaviour and experience--
Editor2020 (
talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry, With
Category:Religious belief and doctrine,
Category:Buddhist belief and doctrine,
Category:Christian belief and doctrine --
Editor2020 (
talk)
04:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
That's the problem, there is no standard. There needs to be a standard. That's why I wrote "standardize usage". I think this usage is good. If you disagree, please come up with another one. We'll discuss it, and if your suggestion wins, we'll implement it.
Currently, "belief", "teachings", "philosophy", "doctrine", "practices", "views", "viewpoints", "behaviour" (and I'm sure a few more that I can't think of off the top of my head) are all confusingly intertwined. I think that some of this confusion can be reduced by trying to standardize usage and categorization.
You write " Why is 'beliefs and practices' inferior to 'belief and doctrine'?" It's not inherently better or worse, it's just not the better usage in this case because it collapses two things which are separate in the current categorization scheme. "Belief", which resolves to
Category:Religious belief and doctrine and "practices", which resolves to
Category:Religious behaviour and experience.
Alternatively, if these two categories were combined into
Category:Religious belief and practices, then
Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices would be better.--
Editor2020 (
talk)
16:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- A doctrine is simply a collection of beliefs advocated by a organization with ritual practices. I have an issue with the first four letters "doct" as the sequence has subconscious association with the words "doctor", "doctorate", or "doctored". The phrase "beliefs and practices" can be substituted for "ritual and belief", with the emphasis on describing rituals with a minor description of beliefs, followed by a more elaborate description of beliefs. The phrasing has the added bonus of having the same spelling in both
American English and
British English. This seems to be more logical that what is currently proposed.
Kmarinas86
(6sin8karma)
17:41, 17 January 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:Sikh beliefs
- 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.
Kbdank71
17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming/merging
- Nominator's rationale: for consistency. Although both appear to be perfectly acceptable adjectival forms and synonymous, article page
Yugoslavia consistently uses 'Yugoslav' and not 'Yugoslavian' as the adjective form of 'Yugoslavia'. (Note: the other 50 or so cat pages for people using an adjectival form of Yugoslavia already use 'Yugoslav')
Mayumashu (
talk)
16:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename all per nom. Once I nominated the categories to
all be changed to "Yugoslavian", but it resulted in an agreement to keep "Yugoslav" for those that use it. And since then I've re-considered and re-researched and agree that "Yugoslav" is more common and therefore more appropriate. "Yugoslavian" isn't really "wrong", but I agree that we should adopt "Yugoslav" as the common standard in WP. There's no sense having different categories use different adjectives for the same thing.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:09, 14 January 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.
Honorary Fellows
- 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.
Kbdank71
18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of Colleges of the University of Cambridge (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of Clare Hall, Cambridge (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of Colleges of the University of Oxford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of Brasenose College, Oxford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of Merton College, Oxford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of St Hilda's College, Oxford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Category:Honorary Fellows of University College, Oxford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose Deletion - I believe these categories are fundamentally comparable to the categories for Honorary Doctorates that are up for deletion below, and to other similar categories that have recently been deleted, primarily over the relative unimportance & abundance of such honors, and attendant concerns re Category Clutter.
Cgingold (
talk)
14:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
Notified all available category creators with {{
subst:cfd-notify}}
Cgingold (
talk)
16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. These are analogous to the honorary degree categories, and in the end, they can simply be seen as garden-variety awards categories, which are routinely deleted (and listified if the information is wanted for WP). I've no opinion on listifying in these cases, but as for the categories it seems to be a definite delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep — being a Fellow of a college or society is a lasting connection, whether honorary or not, whereas an honorary degree is a one-off event. So I do not agree that the two are analogous at a fundamental level. This is more like a knighthood or similar honour than a degree. "Honorary" in the case of colleges generally means unpaid. —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk)
01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- These are not all the same. Honorary Fellowship of the Royal Society is indeed a great honour and only one person can be elected to the position in any one year. There are categories for all the other types of Fellowship and Foreign membership of the RS and I think this one should be kept. The College positions are different. I am inclined to think that they can be merged into the main Fellowship category for College Fellowships, of which there are a larger number than those for Honorary Fellowship, although all Colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have the latter positions. I have to say however that College Honorary Fellowships are not like Honorary Degrees as they are on-going positions with commitments to the College. So keep the Royal Society one and merge the College ones. --
Bduke
(Discussion)
02:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- College honorary fellowships tend to be given to distinguished alumni or to retiring academics of particular distinction. Both types of recipient will already be categorised in an alumni and / or a fellows category for the college and a further category is unnecessary. Sometimes, an honorary fellowship is given to someone prominent in public life with no educational link to the college - e.g. in the case of Jesus College, Oxford (my pet subject) David Lloyd George (for being a prominent Welshman) and Sir Georg Solti (whose daughter was at the college and who helped with fundraising). In these cases, categorisation of the honorary fellowship is akin to overcategorisation by award. However, the information is non-trivial and deserves to be kept. It can make quite a nice list (see
List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford). So, listify the college categories. Do not merge, because that introduces confusion into the categories as to whether someone is a "real" fellow of the college or not. No opinion on the Royal Society nomination.
Bencherlite
Talk
06:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Agree that there is no parallel with hon degrees, so different 'delete' arguments need to be made. (Can someone be an Hon fellow of several colleges?) I incline towards 'keep all' as there seem to be difficulties with a merge (unless bencherlite can volunteer to produce lists of the standard of
List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford for each college - a cfd 'listify' produces a bare list of names).
Occuli (
talk)
15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I'm glad to see that this has attracted so much input. Thanks to one and all for your informative remarks. I will probably try to formulate an amended proposal that synthesizes what has been said.
Cgingold (
talk)
00:34, 16 January 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:List of United States enlisted ranks
Category:Christian religious leaders by century
Category:17th century Christian religious leaders
- 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.
Kbdank71
17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:17th century Christian religious leaders (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Only contained 1 entry (removed). Category not notable
Jeffro77 (
talk)
14:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:16th century Christian religious leaders (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:18th century Christian religious leaders (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:19th century Christian religious leaders (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Have added 3 sibling categories created since cfd started.
Occuli (
talk)
20:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Please be good enough to restore the article that you removed. As it says right on the CFD notice, "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." Doing so preempts the CFD process, and makes it nearly impossible for other editors to fully & fairly evaluate the merits of the emptied category. Thank you.
Cgingold (
talk)
15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I have restored the (meager) content of each of these categories. However, there is very little there, and I still believe the categories are unnecessary.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you - now we can make a more informed assessment of these categories.
Cgingold (
talk)
15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The existing ones yesterday were 17th, 20th, 21st.
User:EstherLois is creating more during this cfd, despite having been informed of it.
Occuli (
talk)
19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- There is no suggestion to delete just the 17th Century category. 'Religious leaders by century' will never be an exhaustive category; the meager content that is in them is not representative of the total, and is therefore little benefit. Careers of religious leaders very often span parts of two centuries. The sub-categories are a separate issue.--
Jeffro77 (
talk)
01:25, 17 January 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:20th century Christian religious leaders
- 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.
Kbdank71
17:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:20th century Christian religious leaders (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty
Jeffro77 (
talk)
14:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - this is another creation by
EstherLois (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) who seems to have rather a scatter-gun approach and does not necessarily finish things off properly. I'm not particularly keen on dividing everyone up by century (footballers by decade?) but there is
Category:20th century Christian bishops + many popes who should be included. It could be argued that 'leader' is too vague but that would be a mammoth cfd.
Occuli (
talk)
16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete with all subcats - I don't see that any of these are necessary or add anything other than clutter (mass categorisation of bishops and church leaders, esp of American non-conformists, is something that I seem to remember has been attempted - and declined - before...)
HeartofaDog (
talk)
01:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, per HeartofaDog.--
Editor2020 (
talk)
17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, per HeartofaDog. --
Mike Doughney (
talk)
12:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per my comments above.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep See above.
EstherLois (
talk)
12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
Keep Per above. Delete This is over overcategoraztion per above. --
Carlaude (
talk)
02:25, 18 January 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:21st century Christian religious leaders
Category:Mesoregions of Santa Catarina
Category:Anarchism by genre
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to
Category:Anarchism by form.
Kbdank71
18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Anarchism by genre to
Category:Discuss
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - "genre" does not seem the right word to describe different strains of a political philosophy. I can't recall a single instance other than this category of seeing it used. Not sure what the best replacement word would be. Someone on the talk page suggested "thread" which seems similarly obscure. "Faction" maybe?
Otto4711 (
talk)
09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Type? Shade? Persuasion? Variety? Hue? ('by type' is the standard construct, though perhaps a little mundane for anarchy.)
Occuli (
talk)
11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Anarchism by medium. I use the example of
Category:American actors by medium for my arguement.
Lugnuts (
talk)
13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Anarchism by type. Simplest is best.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Category:Anarchism by type.
Recury (
talk)
14:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment and alternate proposal - I agree that "genres" is a little off and support renaming the category. I just looked through the
main article and
Anarchist schools of thought to see which terms are favored in those articles. I found 3 words that were used more than once or twice: "schools", "traditions", and "forms", which was by far the most commonly used word. I also happen to think that "forms" is the best choice of terms, so I suggest Renaming to
Category:Anarchism by form.
Cgingold (
talk)
15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to "by form" per Cgingold. Also, I have nominated a number of similar categories
here. --
Eliyak
T·
C
03:37, 15 January 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:Documentaries by topic
- 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 by nominator.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
:Propose renaming
Category:Documentaries by topic to
Category:Documentary films by topic
Nominator's rationale: I believe this category, and its sub-categories "Documentaries about..." should be renamed as Documentary films by/Documentary films about.... The category above is
Category:Documentary films, so named in order to distinguish it from the two other main branches within
Category:Documentaries: radio documentaries and television documentaries. Sorry, this is as clear as I can make it...
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 05:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN. Sorry, I'm still not sure what if anything to do with this category. Please disregard. --
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:11, 14 January 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:Classical songs
- 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 per revised nom.
Kbdank71
18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Classical songs to
Category:Art songs
Category:Songs in classical music
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Present title is ambiguous. 'Classical' may refer to 'Classical music', 'Classical era music' (late 18th/early 19th century) or simply mean 'notable' or 'historic'. 'Art song' would be broad in meaning, but clear, however maybe some people will have other suggestions?
Klein
zach 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I have struck out
Category:Art songs in favour of
Category:Songs in classical music for which we now seem to have a consensus. --
Klein
zach
02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep added: or Rename per amended nom, as we do indeed seem to have concensus for this. (as creator) "Art songs" is even more ambiguous. As a term for song in classical music it is essentially an American usage. According to our article it includes
Kundiman , "a genre of traditional Filipino love songs" and no doubt other genres not from Western classical music can be included. As to "classical", whatever it's ambiguities, the word is inescapable, clearer than "art", and there are plenty of other categories that use it. The category has a note that makes the scope perfectly clear.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - it's accepted that in mainstream media, "Classical" refers to Renaissance, Baroque, Classical classical, Romantic, Contemporary, etc. We've had the word used in this way before, and, as John said, "art song" would be even more elusive. —
La Pianista (
T•
C)
06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment For some people 'Classical' means little more than the 'Classic' in 'Classic coke'. In the past, I've found non-classical music articles (particularly Jazz) included in 'Classical' cats. ('Classical music songs' would be clearer but also bad English.) --
Klein
zach
08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It could be divided into 'European art songs', 'Asian art songs' etc. which is much more difficult with 'Classical XYZ' cats, but I'm happy to look at other solutions. --
Klein
zach
23:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- That would be preferable to "Art songs", but we don't use that formula for the other classical forms, & I don't myself see that the ambiguity (given the note on the category page) is sufficient to require it. Another problem is that on a strict interpretation this would mean the category should include all the songs of
George Gershwin,
Kurt Weill and no doubt other "crossover" composers - at a real stretch
Paul McCartney. For this reason Occuli's 'Songs in classical music' would be my second choice.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
-
- Comment Classical has many meanings, and is used to describe many things, but I haven't really heard "Classical songs" - so something else should be adopted lest we be engaging in some OR by ascribing some meaning to the term which has no secure footing in literature or the real world. And it is odd that Classical music doesn't come from Classical civilizations, but that's beyond the scope of this...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
19:52, 16 January 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:Associates of King's College
- 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 by nominator (me) per discussion below.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Suggest merging
Category:Associates of King's College to
Category:Alumni of King's College London
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. An
Associate of King's College is "the degree equivalent qualification of
King's College London. ... It is the original qualification that the College awarded to its students since, not being a university, it could not award a degree." So, it's analogous to people who have earned a degree from another university. To me that's overcategorization of the alumni of the school. (Essentially a subcategory for those who "graduated"?) I am proposing merge to the alumni category. We've
deleted a number of university degree categories in the past, but I haven't seen a school-specific one before (with the exception of the honorary degree ones).
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as a sub-cat of
Category:Alumni of King's College London
a bit weakly - because of the status of the Theological AKC as outlined in the article
Associate of King's College as a stand-alone clergy qualification, given that the Theological Department that awarded it was not technically part of King's College. So there were at least some people with an AKC and no other degree who were not formally graduates of King's College(unless I have got it totally wrong, and if I have, please tell me). But probably could be usefully limited to holders of the Theological AKC.
HeartofaDog (
talk)
01:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC) - and see below
reply
- Keep (as creator of the category). It is a useful category as AKC is an award given by KCL, and the category contains mentionable people who have received that award. The nominator is wrong in saying that it is given to every graduate. It is now only given to a small proportion of total graduates. It is therefore not synonymous with alumni. Those with an AKC use "AKC" as post-nominal initials, and is a rare class of university-specific award for this reason. I think it is a useful category and can't see why it should be deleted. --
Oldak
Quill
15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- So with that clarification, it's basically an "award" category. It should be deleted because such categories are almost always deleted except for the most notable awards in the world. Another way of looking at it I suppose is it sounds akin to a degree given "with high honors" or "cum laude", and categories for those types of selective degrees have also been deleted.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: No, not really. But apart from the use you are discussing, as I attempted (apparently in vain) to make clear the AKC is also (or until relatively recently has been) a theological degree, independently and in parallel to its other use, which was not awarded by King's College itself but by the technically separate Theological Department, and a cat needs to remain for holders of the Theological AKC. It seems to occur often enough in biogs of notable English clergy to be worth keeping separate. I expect that this is coming across as nit-picking, for which I am sorry, but it reflects a fiddly history.
HeartofaDog (
talk)
02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- It's OK—I'm obviously not understanding it. Oldoak refers to it as "an award given by KCL", but you say no, not really. What is its current status? It is a degree? A type of a degree? Some other degree-like status awarded by the school? Or it not like a degree at all, and more like an award? Or does it just mean people who studied in theology at the school? After reading the article again, I really can't see how this is any different than someone who studies at a school and earns a specific designation, whether it's called a degree or something else. (I'm referring to current status here—the old use sounds like it would be a separate "alumni"-type category, but the use of mixing those with those who have the designation under the new system seems a bit, well—let's just say the two groups need to be separated since they apparently refer to two different systems.)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I agree with that - its current status is a KCL internal qualification that happens for historical reasons to carry its own postnominals with it. That's different from the earlier Theological AKC as a church qualification.
- There seem to be 3 types of AKC: 1) people who qualified from King's Coll before the
University of London existed (1829-36); 2) the Theological AKC, held by theological students, who weren't catered for by the University of London, and for whom the AKC continued to operate as a separate qualification awarded by the Theol Dept of KC, which was at least notionally a separate organisation (1836-1976) (it's possible that it was also open in a reduced form during at least some of this period to non-theologian members of KC, as it now is, so not everyone with an AKC betw those dates is necessarily a Theol AKC); and 3) students at KCL post-1976, for whom it seems to be an optional extra course which gives you three extra letters after your name. I don't think there is any idea with it of a "distinction" or "award", however (which is what I meant by "no, not really"). It's just a separate internal course, and the letters then serve to indicate in later life that your London qualification is from King's College, and not one of the less distinguished colleges.
- I can't see any reason not to merge types 1 and 3 into
Category:Alumni of King's College London, but holders of the Theological AKC seem to me to be probably sufficiently distinct to warrant being dealt with separately, as you say - perhaps in a sub-cat of
Category:Alumni of King's College London.
HeartofaDog (
talk)
12:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Excellent—thanks, that was a great summary for the uninformed (me). Based on what you've set out, I think I agree with your approach to the 3 categories. But obviously, this would have to be something that is done manually, article-by-article. And I think it would be tricky to keep them separated, because dolts like me would always come along and lump them all together again. I'm happy to withdraw the original nomination proposal, though I think we can keep the discussion open in case anyone else wants to contribute something.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
13:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, even though the Theol Dept was technically separate to get round the degree regs, in practice it must have been so close to King's both physically and administratively that it may as well have been an integral part of it, so to be honest it prob is no big deal if the cats were merged. But the Theol AKC will come into its own when someone sorts English clergy by theological college - someone will one day - so it may as well stay!
HeartofaDog (
talk)
00:45, 19 January 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:Honorary doctors
- 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.
Kbdank71
17:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Honorary doctors (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Honorary doctors of the University of Belgrade (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Honorary doctors of the University of Leeds (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
-
Category:Honorary doctors of the University of Oxford (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete all (listify if wanted). More categories for recipients of honorary academic degrees. We've deleted these in the past in favour of lists because invariably the people who receive them are notable and defined not for receiving the honorary degree, but for the things that they did that justified the awarding of the degree. And very prominent people could have many, many categories just for honorary degrees which would lead to category clutter. See previous discussions:
-
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_6#Category:People_who_have_recieved_honorary_degrees_from_Harvard_University
-
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_10#Category:Honorary_doctors_of_Anglia_Ruskin_University
-
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15#Category:Honorary_Doctors_of_the_University_of_Chicago —
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Just happening by, and I wanted to agree that it is now well-established that Honorary degrees are not distinctive qualities that meet category guidelines.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per nom and extensive precedent. Indifferent to a list.
Otto4711 (
talk)
09:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - per nom, no reason to treat these any differently than the other similar categories that have been deleted.
Cgingold (
talk)
14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Note: I've also nominated another 9 categories for Honorary Fellows, which I believe are comparable to these cats. (see above)
Cgingold (
talk)
14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Category may not be interesting for those who have been awarded them (as the nominator states, they are already mentionable), but it is interesting from the perspective of honorary degrees. --
Oldak
Quill
15:58, 15 January 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:People from São Tomé and Príncipe
- 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.
Kbdank71
17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:People from São Tomé and Príncipe to
Category:São Tomé and Príncipe people
-
Category:Writers from São Tomé and Príncipe to
Category:São Tomé and Príncipe writers
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. All other subcategories of this nationality category use "São Tomé and Príncipe foo", and it's become fairly standard for nationality categories to use the format "COUNTRY NAME people" when there is no satisfactory "adjective" that works unambiguously. See
Trinidad and Tobago people,
Bosnia and Herzegovina people,
Dominican Republic people,
Dominica people,
Antigua and Barbuda people,
Saint Kitts and Nevis people,
Democratic Republic of the Congo people,
Republic of the Congo people,
Serbia and Montenegro people, etc.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, Per
this discussion. Each case should be evaluated on its own merits and trying to shoe horn every nationality into the same format doesnt always work for various reasons. Wikipedia is robust enough to accomodate these minor variations.--
Vintagekits (
talk)
13:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with Mayumashu that that example is fundamentally different (apples:oranges), since this is a true nationality category and the main rationale (as I understand it) for changing the N.I. one was is that "Northern Irish" is not a true nationality. All other true nationality category forms match the "Fooian people" or "Foo people" format when "Fooian" is too awkward or unclear. If we can have consistency, my question is—why not? No sense leaving only ST&P out in the cold among the sovereign state nationalities of the world ...
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- exactly. Too bad it couldn t be
Category:Northern Ireland people to keep this consistent but that will have to wait or, eventually, a move to
Category:People from Fooia for countries/nationalities could very well be the answer. (I attempt to elaborate on this here below)
Mayumashu (
talk)
23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I suggested that late in the discussion as a possible compromise, but I think it might have been too nuanced for a discussion that relates in some way to "
The Irish Problem". :)
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per precedent, for now. The discussion above and the one about American sportspeople by state have me thinking that ultimately
Category:People from Fooia is a better pattern than
Category:Fooian people. The two can be taken to mean the same 95% of the time but not, notably, in the case of N.I., where the concept of N.I. nationality is controversial (if not non-existent), and when an adjectival adjective form does not exist, as in this case(, so we take the noun form and use it as an adjective, which is not grammatically incorrect). In the other 95% of cases, the two are be taken (by most if not nearly all) to be synonymous.
Category:People from Fooia would provide the same meaning - to include both citizens, whether resident or not, and non-citizens who are expatriate/resident, but not tourists - and would be able to include properly the remaining 5%.
Mayumashu (
talk)
14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per precedent and per nearly everything else.
Occuli (
talk)
17:59, 15 January 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:The Invincibles
- 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.
Kbdank71
18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:The Invincibles to
Category:The Invincibles (cricket)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename.
The Invincibles is a disambiguation page ("The Invincibles (cricket)" is only a redirect, but it's a valid name for this category, IMO, since the team in question is almost universally known by that name). Far too ambiguous. When I first saw this category name (in a cfd below) I immediately thought of the rugby team, then the comic book superheroes. It was only when I started reading the names listed that I realised it was for the cricket team.
Grutness...
wha?
00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom for disambiguation purposes for a fairly ambiguous name, in and out of sport. Also OK with delete per Occuli below.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - per nom. Will no longer be confusing when renamed.--
Sting
Buzz Me...
04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Comments –
The Invincibles (cricket) is indeed a redirect, to the
Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The Australians have touring cricket teams to at least one country every year (as do most cricket playing countries). I am not aware of any other such categories for a particular team in a particular year and it looks too close to overcategorisation by performance to me. (I am interested in cricket, was brought up in the UK in the 1950s and have never heard of The Invincibles. I have heard of around 1/3 of the team.) 'The Manchester United treble winning team in 1999' - not a suitable basis for a category in my view. (If it is to be renamed it should be to
Category:The Australian cricket team in England in 1948.)
Occuli (
talk)
09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm very surprised indeed that someone interested in cricket has never heard of The Invincibles. As for a Manchester United equivalent, I can well imagine someone considering "The Busby Babes" as a category, which would be a far nearer comparison.Having said that, it may make far more sense to have this as a template than a category.
Grutness...
wha?
00:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I have heard of the Busby Babes. Perhaps the Invincibles are recalled with less relish in the UK - losing to Australia at cricket is not unusual and the precise degree of humiliation inflicted is not usually dwelt upon.
Occuli (
talk)
00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Either Delete as performer/performance overcategorization (I assume that one or more of these players also played on teams in countries and years other than England and 1948, which could lead to a proliferation of such categories) or Rename to
Category:Australian cricket team in England in 1948 to match the main article. That is standard practice and I'm persuaded by Occuli's comments about the familiarity of the nickname.
Otto4711 (
talk)
09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom (to match use of
The Invincibles articles). Do not delete, the term is widely used in Australia. Googling for "cricket invincibles" (without the quotes) throws up hits from reliable Australian news sources such as
Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
The Australian and
The Age.
Peter Ballard (
talk)
09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
Change to Delete. Grutness' suggestion that a template would be better appealed to me, so I had a look and a template -
Template:The Invincibles squad - already exists! Having a category and a template for the same thing makes no sense - the template is really nice and allows the user to easily find members of the team, so the category serves no purpose. Delete it.
Peter Ballard (
talk)
00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. More accurate a better reflects the goal of the category.--
Vintagekits (
talk)
13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Do not delete - do not mind whether it is renamed. It is not an overcategorisation, look at all those
XXX at the Year Olympics etc.
YellowMonkey (
bananabucket)
01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Rename Having googled as invited I am now convinced that this was a 'legendary' tour even if its fame did not reach me personally (or perhaps it is one of many things I knew in detail in the 60s and have completely forgotten, such as Latin and German). My main concern was that Bradman (say) should not be categorised by every tour that he was on (there was the nicknamed
Bodyline tour as well, certainly remembered in England). It also seems that 'The Invincibles' is a defining characteristic for each member of its squad (see any of the newspaper obituaries). There are plenty of articles in the category which are not on the template, eg the individual test matches. I do however think that while the articles
Donald Bradman and
Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 should be in
Category:The Invincibles,
Category:Donald Bradman should be removed (as most of it has nothing to do with the 1948 tour). Ditto all the other 'people' subcats.
Occuli (
talk)
10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- keep it is the defining characteristic if this team, but if is to be renamed do it to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 type name rather than the dab title suggested
- 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:Pocket PC software
- 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.
Kbdank71
17:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Pocket PC software to
Category:Windows Mobile Professional software
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although once considered synonymous, the term "Pocket PC" is simply a phased-out name for a hardware platform, and not the OS itself. The official, modern naming convention by Microsoft is "Windows Mobile Professional". Basically it's akin to having a category such as "PC software" rather than "Windows software" which makes more sense.
Brianreading (
talk)
00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
reply
- as for the comparison between PC and Windows software some of us actually still have machines and software that was made well before Windows. Others choose not to use microsft products on their machines.
Gnan
garra
10:21, 16 January 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:Former academics of the University of Leeds