Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

May 4[edit]

Category:Cardinals by nationality[edit]

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. Even disregarding the !votes about birds (even a brief glance at Category:Italian cardinals, for example, shows the very clear "Classification: People: By occupation: Clergy" header. I don't know about anyone here, but none of the people or clergy I know are birds.), there is enough opposition to the rename. The header at Category:Cardinals by nationality does state "Roman Catholic cardinals" and has since November 2007. Kbdank71 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cardinals by nationality to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals by nationality
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Some time ago, Category:Cardinals was renamed to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals and Category:Cardinals became a disambiguation category page. The subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic cardinals were never changed. I'm proposing that all of the nationality categories that use "Fooian cardinals" be changed to "Fooian Roman Catholic cardinals" to reflect this change. However, before I nominate all 100-odd categories, I thought I'd make sure that there would be consensus for such a rename, so I'm testing out the general idea with this category first. Link to original CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – logical consequence of the earlier cfd. Occuli (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I'll also support that the categories affected be processed as a speedy renames if there is support here for the renames. All of the categories would need to be tagged for a speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to match title of parent article. Note that there are other categories within the parent that don't prefix "Cardinal" with "Roman Catholic". Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is silly - next stop Category:Italian Roman Catholic Popes. The other kinds of cardinals are not going to get national categories. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't reductio ad absurd me. You don't think there are enough cardinals of different nationalities in churches other than the Roman Catholic Church to justify nationality categories? Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't! See below. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Does anyone think the birds are distinguished by nationality! Soidi (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not really anything to do with birds. As pointed out in the previous discussion and discussed at length (and below by Carlaude), there are non-Roman Catholic cardinals of the religious variety. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only usage of "Roman Catholic Church" by the highest authority of that Church refers to the whole Church. On request, I can give you at least 18 cases in which the Holy See has used it in this sense. I challenge you to give even one instance in the last century or in this, in which the Holy See has used "Roman Catholic Church" to mean Latin Church to the exclusion of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Soidi (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussion, the focus was on Church of England cardinals. In any case, your comments seem more relative to re-fighting the battle over the parent category name. That horse's left the barn. Besides, I don't think we're locked in to using terminology in the same way the Holy See does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the horse has left the barn, that is no reason to let it graze the wheat. Soidi (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the wheat is full of weeds and crap and you wanted it cleared anyway. Figure that one out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cardinal birds are only found in the Americas. Most people in the rest of the world have never heard of them. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Most people in the rest of the world have never heard of them." You're joking right? How stupid do you think people outside of the Americas are? Give them a bit more credit. I don't think they would think "Italian cardinals" refers to a bird, but I also don't think they have no concept that a bird of that name exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, they don't! Why should they? Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't? Have you asked people about this? If so, you must live in quite a provincial place. I think people generally would know about them just because they are reasonably well-rounded individuals who have general knowledge about the world. Do people who don't live in New Zealand know that about the bird called a "kiwi"? Do non-Australians and non-Africans know about the ostrich? Plus many watch American TV (and in particular American sports), which may mention cardinals. I don't live in the Americas right now; I think I'm going to ask my neighbours about this this weekend. .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no doubt you know all the families of small birds living in say Africa or South-East Asia? I certainly remember, when probably older than the average WP user, being slightly puzzled as to why a football team had called itself after the College of Cardinals. They have little or no imprint on the international world of popular culture - no cartoon characters etc. Do let us know how the survey goes. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you just insulted "Cuthbert the Cardinal", the cartoon mascot of the local high school in Podunk, Indiana. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked Category:Fictional passerine birds & the only hope seems to be Fredbird, who needs to pull his feathers out of his cloaca & get some international exposure. If those bluebirds can do it ... Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked both of my neighbours about this. I asked them what a "cardinal" was. One said "a bird" first thing. The other said it was a religious position. When I asked if there were any other meanings, he said, "a red bird". The first is an immigrant to New Zealand from Scotland. The second is a NZ native. They acted more like I was asking dumb questions than anything else. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! Not exactly a statistically significant sample, even for New Zealand. Maybe you should throw a party "Come as a cardinal" and see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I think the fact that I am actually Canadian kind of tipped them off that I was running some sort of "how dumb are New Zealanders" test of knowledge, so it was hardly a fair test. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine anyone even in the Americas thinking that "Italian cardinals" means Italian birds. So, by adding "Roman Catholic" to "Category:Italian cardinals" we'd give people the impression that there are some Italian cardinals who are not Roman Catholic! Soidi (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nationalities for Eastern Europe, West & South Asian should instead be Category:Fooian Catholic cardinals since they will include "Eastern" Catholic cardinals. We do not need both Category:Indian Eastern Catholic cardinals and Category:Indian Roman Catholic cardinals. --Carlaude (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, e.g., Joseph Parecattil. He's an Indian cardinal but he's not a Roman Catholic cardinal, so theoretically he's misplaced under the ultimate parent. A bit problematic. Perhaps changing them all to just "Catholic" would be preferrable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the only usage of "Roman Catholic Church" by the highest authority of that Church refers to the whole Church, not excluding the Eastern Catholic Churches. Joseph Parecattil, Emmanuel III Delly, Lubomyr Husar, Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir are all cardinals of the same College of Cardinals of the same Roman Catholic Church, as this term is understood by the Church itself. Or, if you prefer, they are all cardinals of the same College of Cardinals of the same Catholic Church, as this term is understood by the Church itself. There is no need to add either "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" to the word "Cardinals" in this category. Not only is there no need: the addition of either would suggest the false idea that there are also other Cardinals distinguished by nationality. There aren't. Soidi (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of this just shows the nonsensical nature of the nom. Joseph Parecattil & all the Eastern cardinals were appointed by Popes (yes, Roman Catholic Popes) and are members of the Roman Catholic Church in the normal broad sense as defined in the article, though not of the largest, Roman rite, part of it. To introduce these distinctions in category names is confusing and inappropriate. Pastor Wayne would be delighted to see his work continues. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there are Church of England cardinals too. All of this above is more of an argument to reverse the previous rename of the parent category. It's already been renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be, until some point between 1750 and 1900, two (at a time) very minor CofE office-holders at one cathedral whose job title was either Senior Cardinal or Junior Cardinal, but were not addressed as such. No holder of these offices ever appears to have been notable, which holding the office per se would certainly not be. Oh, I now see Richard Harris Barham, later notable as an author, was one for 3 years from age 32-35 before he got a parish. They were not at all a major factor in the last debate, and it would be inappropriate to have a category for them, if any did become notable by progressing to more significant roles. They are a complete irrelevance here. I will repeat that this part of that article remains unreferenced, & is very hard to find anything about on Google, including at the cathedral website. We don't in Category:Church of England clergy have a sub-cat for canons, still less for minor canons, still less for minor canons of St Paul's Cathedral, of whom these were two. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not chomping at the bit to rename these, and I don't care all that much one way or the other. But once the parent category has been renamed, to have the subcategories in a different format than that parent category makes it look like Wikipedia has never seen a style book before. That's just my opinion. Most readers aren't going to care about these fine arguments and distinctions. But they will notice when half-way down the category tree the names changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - All the cardinals who are eligible for inclusion to date are of the Roman Catholic Church in the broad sense of that term, followers of the Pope of Rome. While there might be a use for a category for Eastern Catholic cardinals, I think the different name would, ultimately, bring more confusion than clarity. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since "all the cardinals who are eligible for inclusion to date are of the Roman Catholic Church", adding "Roman Catholic" to "Cardinals by nationality" is mere tautology, on the same lines as adding "Natural-born American" to a category or list of "Presidents of the United States". In addition, it wrongly suggests that other cardinals distinguished by nationality do exist, as the addition of "Natural-born American" to the other category or list would suggest that some Presidents of the United States were not natural-born Americans. Soidi (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the Church of England ones. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above for these elusive creatures. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't appear in list of the officials of St Paul's Soidi (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per arguments stated above. As all cardinals of a certain nationality are Catholics, the attribute Catholic is not necessary. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above for these elusive creatures. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't appear in list of the officials of St Paul's Soidi (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no serious argument for there being any other Cardinals divided by nationality than those of the Catholic Church. It's a bit like naming a category "Japanese Mayors of Tokyo". It just looks silly. Besides the main article title is currently under discussion. Xandar 22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposal is just ridiculous. What else would anyone mean by "Cardinals by nationality"? The proposal would also raise the question "Roman Catholic" or just "Catholic". Neither is needed. Platia (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another runner in today's tautology handicap. HeartofaDog (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Negative[edit]

Eponymous category[edit]
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 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Negative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small eponymous category for a band; Template:Negative links to everything currently included. If kept, needs to be disambiguated to Category:Negative (pop-rock band) to match main article Negative (pop-rock band). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – very little material. Occuli (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Negative albums[edit]
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 13:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Negative albums to Category:Negative (pop-rock band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Resolve ambiguity. There are two bands with this name: Negative (pop-rock band) and Negative (glam-rock band). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – per nom. Occuli (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as "negative albums" sounds like a value statement rather than albums by a band called Negative :) Orderinchaos 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former Lok Sabha Members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former Lok Sabha Members to Category:Lok Sabha members
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We generally don't categorize members of legislative bodies by generic current or former status. (The Lok Sabha is the lower house of Parliament in India.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, generally we don't have current/former for people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Billboard year-end number-one singles[edit]

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, empty. Kbdank71 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Billboard year-end number-one singles to [[:Category:]]
Nominator's rationale: Needs to be split and populated, as Billboard Year-End has charts for Hot 100, Country ,etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK but to me (not US) 'year-end number-one singles' sounds like 'Christmas number-ones'. Occuli (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally created this category for the country singles, then i created a category like this one for country singles, and left this one for singles in all genres that were the number-one singles of the year. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the category has been depopulated, and a new tree starting at Category:Number-one singles of the year was created today. - Eureka Lott 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Subudians[edit]

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 this and subcats for consistency. Kbdank71 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Subudians to Category:Subud members
Nominator's rationale: Subudians is not a proper word. Subud members are just called Subud members. Thus the term "Subudians" is not in accord with Wikipedia's General naming conventions M-Henry (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Does that mean I have to change all the renaming tags?M-Henry (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters. You could change the nom above. Occuli (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does provide useful function, allowing notably members to be referenced without cluttering up the main article page. M-Henry (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these people notable for being of this religion? Does it affect how they do whatever they do that makes them otherwise notable? If we cannot answer yes to both and explain particularly how to the second question, their religion is not something we should categorize on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - on examination several of these entries are. John G. Bennett was a writer and he wrote several books on Subud. Eva Bartok an actress who experienced what her entry describes as an "allegedly miraculous recovery" from cancer credited to the Subud spiritual exercise. Roger McGuinn's entry describes his "Subud name" as making him "vibrate better with the universe", which sounds like it has something to do with him as a musician. I think these show the categories do have a constructive purpose. M-Henry (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, though with only about 7 people between 5 sub-cats, I think one main category would be sufficient here. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Singles certified Gold by the RIAA[edit]

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: administrative close The manual work being requested does not need CFD to accomplish. Kbdank71 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Singles certified Gold by the RIAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There doesn't seem to be a precedent for categorizing singles by certification. Not sure on this one. It could be seen as a defining characteristic, but it could also get insanely huge. If kept, maybe rename to Category:Singles with RIAA gold certification, and create separate categories for platinum and multi-platinum singles. And then get the albums too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – is there a source for RIAA gold certification, for US sales? Would the plan be to have categories for best selling singles in each country? It doesn't sound particularly attractive. Occuli (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RIAA does have an online database through which album and single certifications can be very easily verified. I think the main problem with this category, though, is that singles can be certified gold by physical sales, digital sales, or mastertone sales, and there are tons of digital gold singles in the past decade — even Jason Aldean, who's on a small indie label, has three digital gold singles out of seven total single releases. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of Gold singles? Well yes, but i thought that seemed defining. Should we split them into what they're based on, is that what should be done if the decision is keep? By the way, i also created a similiar category for Platinum singles. Feel free to check that out. Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the thing though. It is a defining criterion, but given the super-high number of gold and platinum singles, the categorization needs work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genre + certification might work, yes. There are probably thousands of gold/platinum singles in all genres, so subdividing by genre would probably be a good way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Koch Records artists[edit]

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 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Koch Records artists to Category:E1 Music artists
Nominator's rationale: To reflect the label's current name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Leadbelly[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Leadbelly to Category:Songs written by Lead Belly
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with main article. Richhoncho (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian 'Ndranghetisti[edit]

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: Upmerge/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Australian 'Ndranghetisti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A very minute category that is unlikely to have many other Australians in it, I feel that this was especially created for the one entry. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 00th century[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge all per creator's request. Note that "and abbeys" was eliminated from the the target categories in the CfD immediately below this one, so they are actually being merged to the new categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging [[:Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 00th century]] into [[:Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 00th century]]
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 4th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 4th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 5th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 5th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 6th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 6th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 7th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 7th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 8th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 8th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 9th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 9th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 10th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 10th century
Category:Christian congregations and communities established in the 11th century into Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 11th century
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I originally created these categories (up to the 11th century) instead of the much more descriptive, categorizable, and useful subcategories [[Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 00th century]] and [[Category:Church buildings established in the 00th century]] and the parent category [[Category:Christian organizations established in the 00th century]]. Having moved all the ordinary church buildings and orders into their own categories, these should be upmerged into[[Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 00th century]] (so the monasteries— all that is left in them— are not lost)--Carlaude (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Christian monasteries and abbeys by century established[edit]

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 "Christian monasteries established in the xyth century". My reading of the discussion is that this option was OK with everyone. Though it sounded like it was probably no one's first choice, it was the one everyone seemed to agree on being acceptable. Participants, please let me know if I've misinterpreted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys by century established to Category:Christian religious houses by century established [along with all sub-categories]
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 4th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 4th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 5th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 5th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 6th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 6th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 7th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 7th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 8th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 8th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 9th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 9th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 10th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 10th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 11th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 11th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 12th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 12th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 13th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 13th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 14th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 14th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 15th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 15th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 16th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 16th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 17th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 17th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 18th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 18th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 19th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 19th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 20th century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 20th century
Category:Christian monasteries and abbeys established in the 21st century to Category:Christian religious houses established in the 21st century
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "monasteries and abbeys" is a tautology - all abbeys are monasteries (although some buildings with the word "abbey" in their names are former abbeys). Renaming all to "Cat:Christian monasteries of the xth century" would be perfectly possible, but rightly or wrongly people sometimes query the use of "monastery" for women's communities, and also for orders - eg., the Franciscans or Dominicans - in which the male religious are not monks, so "Christian religious houses" seems more neutral / less open to challenge. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why the 17th century sub-cat is empty? Cgingold (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tidy-up. These are new cats, so still being filled up. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles to be added by bot are listed here. --Carlaude (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the only issue is that "monasteries and abbeys" maybe a tautology, they can just be renamed to "Cat:Christian monasteries of the xth century". This would, however, lead to the question of what to do with churches that were established as monasteries as little less clear-- but continues to carry the name, for example, see Westminster Abbey.
Use of "monasteries" if preferable IMO, as a discriptive word, for the understanding of outsiders who do know what "religious houses" are. Most who edit these monastery pages know that monasteries can be for male and female communities.
By the way, I also requested comments at WikiProject Christianity before the categories were created, and no one seemed bothered by the category name(s). --Carlaude (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)--Carlaude (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (a) There is no question that it "maybe" a tautology; it is one. An abbey is a particular type of monastery: that's not up for discussion. The cat as presently worded is the equivalent of (e.g.) Category:Fruit and oranges.
(b) You are apparently aiming for a cat that will cover not only abbeys in their monastic function but also buildings in later functions that used to be parts of abbeys. The way to deal with, e.g., Westminster Abbey, is surely to distinguish its functions, and to cat it as (1) a "Christian religious house (or monastery) of the xth century"; and (2) as an "Anglican church". If you want to be very accurate, you can add another cat for "Former abbey churches". There's no need to try to do all these things in a single category, and this may be why it hasn't worked very well.
(c) There's absolutely nothing wrong with the word "monastery", but it has several overlapping meanings, which makes it potentially ambiguous, and it is not a general term that can be applied without further thought to all religious communities: "religious house" on the other hand is, and has no ambiguities. For the avoidance of future wrangling I'd rather go for the option most likely to avoid dispute.
(d)I don't agree that readers are less likely to understand the expression "religious house" than the word "monastery". As for editors, who knows? But why not avoid the difficulty before it becomes one? HeartofaDog (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rehame proposal. As a general reader, i would have no idea what is meant by "religious house". How can a house be religious? Or, is it a kind of publishing house? Or any home of devout people? Would it include any manse, for example? I think monastery is a clear name for a category covering monasteries. I don't know much about abbeys vs. monasteries, but i oppose the proposal to rename to "religious houses". doncram (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good points.--Carlaude (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't heard of it, so you can't use it" - 15 seconds on Google will make clear that "religious houses" is a standard expression, not something I made up for fun: religious houses > monasteries > abbeys.HeartofaDog (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as I said at the top, Category:Christian monasteries of the xth century would be OK if required, and User:Carlaude, the creator of the disputed cats, has agreed, a few lines below. Let's go with that. HeartofaDog (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Golf course architects from Melbourne[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Golf course architects from Melbourne to Category:People from Melbourne
Nominator's rationale: Merge as overcategorisation: Category:Golf course architects isn't even broken down by country yet, let alone city; the one article is already in Category:Golf course architects, so it just needs merging to its other parent, Category:People from Melbourne. BencherliteTalk 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Redirects from other capitalisations[edit]

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: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 4#Template:R from other capitalisation. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects from other capitalisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category serves no real purpose. Over the past few years, many editors have asked why it exists and unsurprisingly their questions have gone unanswered. This category requires bots to constantly add redirects. And in doing so, the bots block legitimate page moves. The category provides little to no benefit to re-users of our content, to readers, or to editors. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Huh... I've known about this category for years and I never really thought about it, but now I do I can't see any possible use. It's obvious when a redirect is from another capitalisation, anyway. Robofish (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've always wondered what the hell this was for. I guess it's probably as useless as I thought it was. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a defence can be made. ({{R from other Capitalization}} is a nice touch though.) Occuli (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created this a couple of years back, but cannot at this point remember my reasoning. I do have one concern, but just a procedural one. This is a category populated mostly by template. In such cases, is it not proper procedure to take the template to WP:TFD first, and then G8 the category? Or are you leaving the template behind? It's not been marked for TFD yet. I'm puzzled as to why the category might be deleted, but the template left. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or after we've deleted the category, we just delete the template (noting that it no longer has any effect). Does it really matter? — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility I just spotted included Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Capitalisation. This page has not been updated in almost a year, so it may be moot, but it appears to be a project that used either the category or template to generate it's contents.
I'm also going to drop a note on the talk page of the template about this discussion. Since I cannot add much for or against this deletion, I'm hoping someone from there might remember what the intended purpose of the category/template is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template and category could not generate a to-do list for this project; it consists of titles for which redirects ought to be created, whereas this template marks redirects which have already been created. The only viable correlation is for the template/category to serve as a measurement of progress made by the wiki-project. Even if the accuracy of this weren't vastly undermined by bots indiscriminately "tagging" such redirects, the disadvantages would still outweigh any possible benefit. — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worse than useless actually. — CharlotteWebb 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect categorization is a waste of time, and as the nom explains, can prevent legitimate page moves by editing the redirect. Mr.Z-man 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer[edit]

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: Administrative close. DRV has resulted in issue being relisted in a different form on 2009 May 9. No consensus here to make this particular change anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer to Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer
Nominator's rationale: More accurate characterization BRG (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer was proposed for renaming to Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer on April 18. With very little discussion, the rename was approved, effective April 24. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer.) Only one person posted an opinion in favor of the change; one other said "put it on hold" and one wrote against it. This does not appear to be a consensus in favor of the change.

In fact, I did not know the change was up for consideration, as I received a notice on my talk page on the 18th, but did not happen to be editing on Wikipedia from the 18th until after the discussion had closed. So I was unable to put forth my arguments.

To me, "Songs written by X" implies songs where X wrote both lyrics and music. Mercer wrote both for only one or two songs; he was by far known primarily as a lyricist. Putting songs like "Autumn Leaves" and "Moon River" in a category of "Songs written by Johnny Mercer" minimizes the roles of the other partners in the team that created these songs.

Some persons have objected to having three categories for one songwriter: "Songs written by X," "Songs with music by X," and "Songs with lyrics by X." While I would think this to be the most accurate way of handling this, I would accept the idea that for people like Johnny Mercer who wrote primarily either music or lyrics there should be two categories: "Songs with music by X" and "Songs with lyrics by X," with the very small number where, a person wrote both being put into both categories. Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a "Songs written by X" category is appropriate, with either "Songs with music by X" or "Songs with lyrics by X" used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wroth both lyrics and music for a lot of songs, yet another treatment might be appropriate.

To satisfy Alansohn's comment that "While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by" there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in Category:Songs with lyrics by Tom Lehrer. -- BRG (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on grounds of overcategorization only. I originally nominated the category for merger but I do agree with BRG to a certain extent. However, I think the real solution is to create a "List of Songs written by Johnny Mercer" which can deal with all the nuances that JM needs and deserves. To this end I have started a list at User:Richhoncho/mercer. Any interested parties are welcome to edit in situ, including somebody competent enough to make it a sortable table. The benefit of this kind of list, over and above categorization, is that songs that don't have WP articles can be added. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Albums produced by Wally Wilson[edit]

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 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by Wally Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Precedent is that producers should have multiple solo credits to their name to warrant an albums-by-producer category. Only one of the albums in this category is a solo production job, and Allmusic lists almost all of his credits as being collaborative. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_4&oldid=1138392956"