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.
I agreed. The initially title is irrelevant, and needs to be properly renamed. That's why I said "or a more appropriate title," because I do not want to make the same mistake as Ham Pastrami. Anyone who can come up a better name is welcome.--
NeoBatfreak (
talk)
19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Mongol Empire in fiction
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 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:Roman Catholic Church novels
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.
Nominator's rationale:: The current category name is confusing, as it may suggest that these novels are being published by the Catholic Church. The proposed rename gets rid of this possible confusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The more important suggestion here, of course, is removing 'Church' from the name. If there is consensus about keeping the 'Roman' pre-fix, I'd accept that. I would't favor it though, since this is about culture, so
Category:Catholicism would be the more natural head for me.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I could see a potential problem with officially authorized catholic books like
Catholic Bible if there is a novel example. But I can't find an officially sanctioned novel; is there one with an article on Wikipedia.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
IMHO it will be usually be clear. Allegorical novels like Pilgrim's Progress or the more recent Hinds' Feet on High Places are Christian novels. We can probably assume that novels published by a specifically Christian imprint are Christian novels. Most of the nominated category are probably not
Christian novels, e.g. Graham Greene's works, but The Robe is. The categories should have "see also" navigation links between them anyway, so finding the contents will be no harder than at present. –
FayenaticLondon21:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm entirely neutral towards whether or not to make this additional split. Just for curiosity, who is actually going to execute this split if that's going to be the final decision?Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Roman Catholic Church art
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.
Nominator's rationale:: The current category name is confusing, as it may suggest that this art is exclusively sponsored by the Catholic Church. The proposed rename gets rid of this possible confusion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment/Question Many if not most of the articles in this tree were not only about Catholicism but also sponsored by The Church. It looks like the entire subcategory of
Category:Roman Catholic Church decorative artists were employed directly by The Church. Are you looking for this tree to move entirely to "Catholic" or would there be some "Roman Catholic Church" sub-categories?
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I would certainly not object to making a distinction between Church-sponsored and non-Church-sponsored art as a second step. Nor would I object against keeping Roman Catholic Church subcategories that already exist, provided the subcategory names are in accordance with the contents.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Caution should be used in simply using "Catholic" to refer to the Roman Catholic Church, as it means different things to many people (see
History of the term "Catholic"). Retaining the phrase "Roman Catholic" would probably be wise.
SFB16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Question: should the
Category:Roman Catholic Church artists part of this hierarchy be kept? Under a slightly shorter name it was deleted, long ago but with a strong consensus and rationale: see
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 23#Category:Roman Catholic Artists. If we think it should be kept but only for official artists of the Roman Catholic Church, then it may be appropriate to keep the "Church" in its name, and also in the name of this parent category. On the other hand, if we think consensus has changed and "Roman Catholic artists" could have a sensible category definition (cf. the explanation at
Category:Latter Day Saint artists) and not be over-used, or if we think the Artists categories should be nominated for deletion, only then I would agree with
OWK,
SFB and
JPL to drop the word "Church". (Note: let's carry on discussing this here, then relist once we have decided which other categories we want to implicate.) –
FayenaticLondon21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films produced by Nicole Kidman
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT (unlikely to grow beyond a few entries), and the producer is not a defining characteristic of a film (the director is, however).
Nymf (
talk)
15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Kidman is not known as a film producer. There is only a handful of these "by producer" categories too, and I don't think it's a good structure to start. I'll raise the issue of the others with
WP:FILM. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead14:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete I concur with
Sillyfolkboy. There have been "auteur" producers such as George Lucas and David Selznick, and while not exactly an auteur Roger Cormon films are recognized as "Roger Cormon" films. Therefore I think there are valid exceptions, but in this case Nicole Kidman's production credits—at least as yet—don't really define a body of work.
Betty Logan (
talk)
21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Unlike directors, we do not currently have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing films by their producer, which would be the baseline necessary for justifying a SMALLCAT such as this. We have a few isolated cases where an individual producer is so prominent, and so noted specifically for their work as a producer, that a "produced by" category is warranted for that particular person, but it isn't a scheme that should ever be rolled out comprehensively to include all people who ever produced a film at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Valve timing tradenames
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OC#Overlapping. It looks like the these were created without awareness of each other because neither is a parent of the other and the articles seemedd randomly placed in each (or both) before I sorted them in good faith not realizing this nomination was forthcoming. The categories now overlap each other except for
lead article and 3 generic articles (
1,
2,
3).
Category:Variable valve timing is superior because it has a main article and the tradename category places this under the
Marketing/Advertising category trees when the articles cover mechanical design and smog/mileage compliance rather than consumer marketing. There is room for improvement for categorization by untangling Lift from Timing, but I don't think the branded/unbranded breakdown is useful. And not a single article documents that the term has a
Trademark, the defining criteria for this category.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dutch members of Calvinist political parties
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.
Nominator's rationale:: In general Dutch Protestantism and Dutch Calvinism almost coincide - and in politics they completely coincide because there is no political party that specifically targets non-Calvinist Protestants.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Christian saints by century
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.
Keep Oldness does not equal badness. Part of an established "by century" tree structure. It complements the "by period" tree structure. Some centuries straddle two periods. There is a gap between Ante-Nicene and Middle ages (as Middle Ages is usually taken to begin with the fall of the Western Empire). This gap is filled by the "centuries" structure.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The person who created the new category structure (note, that was not me) was apparently clever enough to have the centuries nicely follow up from one period to another, so that is not really a problem as such. I must admit that with the 4th and 5th century it's not entirely correct now, that's something we can easily resolve by renaming Anti-Nicene into Ancient Christian and moving the 5th century one period back.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
14:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment There was extensive debate last year about the Ante-Nicene/Ancient Christian name; the former was the consensus. If you want to re-open the debate, that's a whole new CFD proposal.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
20:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I am frequently not in favour of "by century" categories, but in this case I think it is justified. Taht does not mean there is anything wrong with the "by period" tree, which I would not want changed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2nd-century Christian saints
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:do not rename, though several users seem open to other approaches in perhaps eliminating gender divisions in these categories.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)reply
2nd-century Christian saints - of which the single articles are only males
2nd-century Christian female saints - a child category that obviously only contains females
Suggest to name both categories after their gender and rearrange the categories such that they become brother and sister category instead of parent and child category. Note: this would apply similarly to all XX-th century Christian saints.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
oppose there is a much bigger problem with female saints being children. Rather than deal with it here we should take it to a religion board to come up with a solution workable across the board, as more than this one cat is impacted i think.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
18:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The description "child category" used for the subcategory seems to have given the impression that it is a category of child saints. There is nothing wrong with having a subcategory for female saints regardless of age or martyrdom; another for child saints regardless of sex or martyrdom; another for martyrs regardless of age or sex; and maybe other subcategories also, such as for virgin saints; but of course subcategories should be created only for classes that really are of specific interest. The saints left in the "parent category" (I don't mean a category of parent saints) would be those not included in any of the subcategories. I doubt if male saints are of sufficient specific interest to create a subcategory for them. If a subcategory of them is set up, then of course Wikipedia articles that concern male as well as female saints would have to be listed not only in the subcategory for females (as now) but again in that for males. Such Wikipedia articles are not limited to husband and wife pairs: they include articles about female and male saints who were martyred together, and articles about male and female saints whose liturgical celebration was or is on the same day. In the present arrangement, with only one subcategory, there is no need to list such articles in the parent category as well as in the subcategory.
Esoglou (
talk)
11:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Eliminate the division by "female" (or not), if no other division such as "martyr" (or not), "child" (or not) is given. The ghettoization recommendation is: If you cannot create "Gay politicians from GermanySecond-century female saints" without ghettoizing people from Category:German politiciansSecond-century saints, then it may be more appropriate to eliminate the more specific category. The recommendation does not say: Then create a new category "Straight politicians from GermanySecond-century male saints. It says something that is applicable here: An ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories. Is there really any more need for a subcategory of female 2nd-century saints than for subcategories such as bishop 2nd-century saints, martyr 2nd-century saints, and the like? But categorization is by no means my principal field of interest.
Esoglou (
talk)
08:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The problem is that we have ghettoised the female saints. There are two solutions - merge the females back to the parent category OR move the men to a new subcategory. IN the latter case, articles covering saints of both genders (such as married couples) would alone remain in the presnet one. HOwever this policy would need to be applied to every century.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Despite my support of action here, I think that the best way to deal with the issue might well be to have a discussion of every category of saints by century, bot the general ones and the female saints ones.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose On further reflection, I am not sure that a female saints by century category tree is needed. I think at a minimum we should discuss this proposed change in a forum where we leave the option of just upmerging the 2nd-century female saints category into the general 2nd century category. I think in this case, we may have gone too far in creating by gender categories, and would be wiser to upmerge.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I would be okay with any of the two latter proposals, but my preference would be to take over JPL's suggestion. Just generally, I tend to think there are many by-gender childcats in Wikipedia that aren't all as relevant for the topic (see also the pending CfD about Women historians).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Wouldn't it be simpler just to upmerge "Christian female saints by century" into their appropriate time periods (century)? I don't see the need to segregate them.
Mannanan51 (
talk)
21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ontario road transport articles without KML
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.
Oppose—all of them should have at "X road transport articles" previously, which is the standard scheme used by the banner templates for the various roads projects (
WP:HWY,
WP:AURD,
WP:HKRD,
WP:INRD,
WP:UKRD,
WP:USRD), and any categories populated by the
WP:CARD template should be switched over in due course as I did with the "without KML" ones. (Note: I'm out of town for a few days, but if I can, I will attend to the banner once home.) Imzadi 1979→15:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, then nomination withdrawn. A number of the categories in the template don't match the categories created. Let me try to get it all consistent then. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
18:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.