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 whole category structure for bishops needs work but having gotten the Raëlian co-option of the term out of the way (see discussion) we are back to where "bishop" is a Christian term only as far as categorization is concerned. Therefore the "by religion" level of the hierarchy is superfluous and Category:Christian bishops can collapse back into Category:Bishops. SOme of the members of the merged category might be placed elsewhere in the hierarchy, but I think it would be easier if we dealt with those as separate discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – drop the word 'Christian' from all 'bishops' categories. Occuli (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – drop the word 'Christian' from all 'bishops' categories Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, the whole category structure is indeed a mess with several reticulate categories. These proposed changes will be a good start. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport-- I think the French made the Vietnamese Buddhists organise themselves with bishops. I would support the principle of the nomination, but we probably need some measn of dealing with the relatively small number of non-Christian bishops. The word is an anglicisation of the Greek Episopos, meaning an overseer. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think marginalizing them in that fashion would be inappropriate, cf. Category:Non-Italian popes (cfd). In any case we ought to avoid categorizing subjects according to what they aren’t. ―cobaltcigs 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Christian bishops will be a very small category. My comment should therefore not be allowed to hinder the closure of this as as nom. If there are bishops of other religions (and there will certainly not be many), they could be categorised alongside Christian denominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added above. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support redundant, the small class of bishops of other religions can be dealt with using a subcat. Hekerui (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2010 (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.
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:Rename. While listed as a rename since the current name is not accurate in my mind, I think that deletion is the best choice. This area is one of about 3,000 USGS defined units. It would be much better for navigation to cover this information in articles about major units with sections for the subunits. I contend that being included in the USGS units is not defining for the articles. Note, this was created by a banned user. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or something else as the category directs users to mobile phone rather than mobile. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not myself a fan of subsetting Mobile to Mobile phones. Mobile includes tablets, PDAs, etc. Mathiastck (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be a great option. There are “like” buttons on Facebook for this. ―cobaltcigs 21:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37. The single entry has a userbox for that. Hekerui (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2010 (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.
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, as consensus at the AfD was that the defined "family" grouping is not recognized by reliable sources. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until problems with the associated article are resolved. It's not clear from the article that there is a sound basis for defining this collection of people as a family. It is likely that the category should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be three or four families. The parent article needs to show how they all make up one family (or perhaps clan). Is there a common ancestor for members (including perhaps members' spouses)? At present the article seems to be a random collection of prominent Americans, some descended from an early president. We do not like descendant categories and have deleted categories for descendants of certain British and other monarchs. However, I am prepared to wait as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insights from Britain. In this case, it appears that Roger Sherman is a common ancestral link. The other "family" members appear to be either his sons-in-law or his descendants. However, I don't see much evidence that this is a well-defined political family. The U.S. does have some prominent multi-branch political families, such as the Adams political family (apparently linked to the family that is the subject of this category), the Lee family, the Kennedy family, the Rockefeller-Aldrich family political line, and the Taft family but it's not clear to me that this collection of people has been documented as a political family by a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the AFD is resolved and then close this in conformity with the AFD outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The AfD closed as Delete. The same fate would be appropriate for the cateogory. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My view is unchanged, except that I would go along with what Black Falcon says. Issues of remote ancestry are usually NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Ambiguous inclusion criteria. I know that my geography is not good, but how is the Mojave Desert a region in Utah? I was not aware that this desert even extended into Utah. I suspect that there will be some suggestions to cleanup, but without objective definitions of what is included here we will always have problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but encourage this tree to evolve and encourage ideas for a rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is how to evolve. In the past, Nevada had about 7 Territories that they basically used for marketing. I see those as defined regions. The problem here is much larger in that the category tree's contents don't match List of regions of the United States which is basically unsourced. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the problem here is that editors seem to believe that it makes sense to put the whole of Category:Colorado Plateau as a subcat of Category:Regions of Utah (thus putting eg Colorado National Monument into a Utah category). If Category:Regions of Utah were just a list category (no subcats) comprising various regions of Utah, then it would be fine. If the Mojave Desert is a region of Utah, then the article (not the category) belongs, and if not it doesn't. Occuli (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that it should only be subcategories for the regions and no articles. If the regions are truly about a portion of a state then there is no need for articles in the category. Your comment confirms in my mind that we have a big problem with this entire series. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, it probably needs a rename and an introduction to make the inclusion criteria objective and not subject. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2010 (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.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Do (singer). "Do songs" is pretty ambiguous. Plus, I created Category:Do (singer) albums before knowing of this category, so there should be consistency as well. — ξxplicit 04:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename While I don't always agree with the automatic addition of article title disambiguators in category titles, in this case it makes sense to include the disambiguator for clarity. Jafeluv (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2010 (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.
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 as nominated and delete the eponymous parent category. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename/delete. The name of the party has been Jim Anderton's Progressive Party since 2005. From 2002–2005, it was the "Progressive Party". It has never been called the "New Zealand Progressive Party". The eponymous category is unnecessary. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames / Deletion to match title of parent article and to eliminate unneeded eponymous category. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will it keep that name after the next leadership change? I wonder whether the last should not be Category:Progressive Party (New Zealand) and the others matching. However I am the other side of the world and am unfamiliar with NZ politics. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. I expect the party will cease to exist if JA steps down. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. If the name of the party and/or the main article changes, then we can discuss moving the categories appropriately. Until then the categories should follow the naming of the main article and not the other way around. Jafeluv (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose several political parties change names every time the leader changes... a more stable name would be preferable. Same as sports events and title sponsors. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with this party and its history? When/if Jim Anderton steps down, my understanding is that the party will almost certainly cease to exist. It's basically a party that promotes Jim Anderton and his ideas; it's not a major force in NZ politics that's going to carry on throughout the generations after JA retires. If JA steps down and the party continues under a different name, then that would be a good reason to move the article and move the category names. But until then, we're guessing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The phrase "Abrahamic symbols" seems to vague to me--even for someone who is familiar with the term Abrahamic religion. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could mean the Hebrew alphabet... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as plainly more accurate, especially since almost every member is either a category or article for a specific Abrahamic religion. Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I first thought this was about a writing system. Jafeluv (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2010 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom per guideline. Categorizing someone because they were involved in the "best fight scene" or "best make-out" as determined by MTV? Not defining, so no thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (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.
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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category and I don't consider this as a part of a series since there are only two other categories. Article has ample categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as part of the 'by emirate' category structure and populate. Hmains (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vegaswikian. Once building has started there is a structure, so that a special building projects category is unnecessary, certainly where there is only one article, or a very few. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2010 (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.
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 14#Category:Black Rock region. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)