Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17[edit]

Category:Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus[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 14:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed delete Category:Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category:Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus has just one article in it, making it unneeded.--Carlaude (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2008 (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:Eastern Orthodox churches[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: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox churches to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox jurisdictional churches in Asia to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Asia
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and sees in Europe to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Europe
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox minor churches and movements to Category:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox Churches in North America to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America
Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox uncanonical churches to Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies
Propose renaming Category:Oriental Orthodox churches to Category:Oriental Orthodox church bodies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Eastern Orthodox churches, etc., are easily and often seen as a categories for church buildings. (e.g. Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States). In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_8#Category:Anglican_churches it was agreed to name a category for Churches in a very simlar type of organization as "church bodies." In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, some units (or at least the articles on them) are named for the patriarchate if the body covers more than a simple nation, e.g. Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople--Carlaude (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Church is a term with a variety of meanings: denomination or church body; church building; or a Christian community. The original meaning is the latter. This is an ambiguity that is inherent in the word, and it will be difficult to devise a water-tight categorisation scheme to cover all eventualities. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So since nothing is air-tight, you want them to stay as is-- all different and not even matching each other?--Carlaude (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2008 (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:Churches[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 all. Kbdank71 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Churches to Category:Church buildings
Propose renaming Category:Churches by city to Category:Church buildings by city
Propose renaming Category:Churches by country to Category:Church buildings by country
Propose renaming Category:Churches by denomination to Category:Church buildings by denomination
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Churches is not really clear. Even with the note about the intended contents ther are still denominations of churches put in these categories.--Carlaude (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. I am slightly concerned we have jumped from one ambiguity to another, as "church buildings" often means "any buildings owned/built by a church" - schools, houses etc. Can we make sure this is clear from category notes - I don't think we want all these included. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a note can also direct people to Category:Christian buildings--Carlaude (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Also, if this change goes through could someone either list Category:Church stubs and its subcats at WP:SFD (or remind me to do so). Grutness...wha? 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Category:Churches, Category:Churches by city, Category:Churches by country, and Category:Churches by denomination are not clear, so rename them. AdjustShift (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. These are the best names for these cats based on their content and contrast well with the 'religion ...' categories. Hmains (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see your point. Category:Christian buildings is for any buildings used by Christian organizations, such as monasteries, residences, convents, or churches. How is that redundant?
BTW, normally the Category:Churches and such do also seek to include former church buildings.--Carlaude (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His point is the subcats are not included. Category:Grade I listed churches in London is not ambiguous, but Category:Churches in the United Kingdom is, to a degree. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do not think it is as important to rename all the Category:Churches subcategories. By the time you get to, say, Category:Churches in Londonit does not sound like a category about "Church denomination of London" and adding "buildings" would not be needed. I am not sure what I think about renaming the nation-level Category:Churchessubcategories, but at this point I would think that is a separate vote.--Carlaude (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to change -- Church may refer to a church building or to the community that worships in it. It is unlikely that WP would want to have separate articles on the building and the church community, so that the ambiguity needs to remain. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP history so far I would say that no one has trouble with or objections to including articles about particular church buildings and articles about particular church congregations in the same category(ies)-- for the purpose of article names, they share the same name, and some articles about are about the building and the congregation. I have also ben incluning words to this effect in the heading of these categories when I edit them.--Carlaude (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly disagree with that - or at least congregation/parish articles that have nothing on the architecture should be segregated in distinct sub-categories - there are many parish articles in Category:Parishes that are rightly not in this tree. This tree should contain articles that have significant information about the architecture. Johnbod (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2008 (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 denominations in location[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: keep first, rename second. Kbdank71 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christianity in the United Kingdom by denomination to Category:Christian denominations in the United Kingdom
Propose renaming Category:Asian Christian denominations to Category:Christian denominations in Asia
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To fit the form of the parent categories and all other "Christian denominations in "location" categories--Carlaude (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, Support second the UK one as the present name is clearer, and none of the others in Category:Christian denominations in Europe are actually directly comparable. Oppose the second unless "Asian" is incomplete or a typo - "in Asia" I would support. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"in Asian" was a typo, now changed to "Asia"--Carlaude (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so, but didn't like to change it. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may propose renaming it to Category:Christianity in the United Kingdom by denominational family since that reflects much better its subcats. --Carlaude (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Asian"; Neutral on UK. I see no merit in adding "family". At first I though that "Asian" might include South Asian expatriate churches (eg in the UK) and that I would have to oppose the change, but it does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2008 (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:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic[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: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic to Category:Freeways
Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic by country to Category:Freeways by country
Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Norway to Category:Freeways in Norway
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic is a mouthful and not in common usage. It redirects to freeway, so why not have the category and the main article match? I think that all 21 goggle hits trance back to the usage here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of Norway, there could be a better term with a local flavor for that category. I looked at the article and was not sure. An alternative might be to upmerge to Category:Highways in Norway but I'm not convinced that is completely accurate. I should also add that more work in this area needs to happen over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note this previous relevant discussion. --Eliyak T·C 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought this was discussed but could not find it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Another possibility is 'access via interchange roads' which encompasses all the various local specific names used for these roads. 'Freeways' does seem to be a world-wide-term. Hmains (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, freeway does appear to be the main article with breakouts for the other names used in different countries. Note well that renaming the parent category does not dictate the naming of the subcategories when the local name is different. Also 'access via interchange road' gets zero google hits so it is also not used anywhere. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but NOT as nom -- Freeway is an American term and carries the implication that the roads are free, not toll roads. The UK term is motorway, but there are also some trunk roads that fit the description. The French have autoroutes (mostly subject to tolls); the Germans autobahns; etc. The present term is clumsy and unsatisfactory, but this Americanism is not the right solution. We certainly need a global category covering this kind of road, but I am not sure what it should be, possibly the French term Autoroute, which would have the merit of saving us from turf wars between English-speaking countries. For each country, the subcategory should follow national usage Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pretty much share your feelings on the issue - but I do not think that using a French word is a way to make a lot of people happy! Also, "freeway" has both definitions. --Eliyak T·C 02:56, 23 October 2008 (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:Indie comic characters[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 to Category:Fictional characters in comics. Kbdank71 14:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Indie comic characters to Category:Fictional characters in independent comics

Clearer name. Compare to Category:Fictional characters in comics

That said, as an alternative, perhaps this cat should be upmerged Category:Fictional characters in comics, for subsequent diffusion into its subcats. - jc37 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards Merge as nominator. - jc37 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected spelling. Otto4711 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:28, 17 October 2008 (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:Indie comic creators[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 to Category:Comics creators. Kbdank71 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Indie comic creators to Category:Independent comics creators

Clearer name. Compare to Category:Comics creators.

Else, Merge to Category:Comics creators. - jc37 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards Merge as nominator. - jc37 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:28, 17 October 2008 (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:Indie comics[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 to Category:Comics publications. Kbdank71 15:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Indie comics to "something" - jc37 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as nominator. - jc37 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename, because that's not what this category is about. Per the description and the contents, this category is intended for the comic books themselves, not the companies, though a few company subcategories have been included because someone thought they were relevant to indie comics. The defining article is alternative comics, but as there is a company by that name, "indie comics" must have been chosen to avoid ambiguity. Rename instead to something like Category:Independent comics publications; note that this category is already a subcategory of Category:Comics publications. Postdlf (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (You're quick - I was actually just coming back to modify the nom : )
    Anyway, while I think I support your idea, in looking over Category:Comics titles by company, I'm not sure that we should subdivide that category.
    Whatever the solution, the category needs cleanup. - jc37 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure what the solution is but something needs doing. The inclusion criteria on the category is pretty much "everything that isn't published by The Big Two" which would suggest it doesn't need a category. If we referred to alternative comics we run into the problem of that article being almost entirely original research. Indie comics feels like the kind of thing that "you'd know it when you saw it" but is pretty difficult to pin down with a definition which, when applied to the actual comics, gives a decent set of comics without too many miscategorisations. Obviously this issue needs resolving before you can address the other two. As it stands it seems like something that should probably not be categorised (as the definition is too vague). (Emperor (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    I agree (obviously). I prefer one of two options. Either merge to Category:Comics publications (and cleanup); or (weakly) Rename to Category:Independant comics publications and cleanup/prune heavily. - jc37 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking "independent" just meant "not DC or Marvel," but I wasn't sure. Surely if Dark Horse is considered independent, which has been publishing licensed mainstream properties for a couple decades now and had a few film adaptations of its own original properties, then it isn't like we're talking desktop publishing here. There probably isn't any benefit to keeping these further segregated within Category:Comics publications and appropriate subcategories. Postdlf (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my thinking depending on the definition of indie comic - the problem also possibly being that some publisher started indie and went mainstream and I would genuinely struggle to come up with a way of drawing a line in the sand (without recourse to a lot of sources). Perhaps the best route is to listify linked in from the main article and then police it hard to make sure it is sourced - there must be books on indie comics which must come up with some inclusion criteria themselves. (Emperor (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:28, 17 October 2008 (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:Destroyed hotels in the United States[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 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Destroyed hotels in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcat, POV and subjective inclusion criteria. Maybe a rename would help. With the parent categorioes of Category:Defunct hotels of the United States and Category:Collapsed buildings in the United States it makes inclusion here even more subjective and confusing. Using one article that was removed from the category, MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, it was not destroyed but was damaged. It is not defunct but renamed. It did not collapse. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion of the category. There are three (sub)categories here that seem indistinguishable to me: Defunct hotels of the United States, and two of its subcategories, Destroyed hotels in the United States, and Demolished hotels in the United States. What is the difference between "destroyed" and "demolished"? By all means these two subcategories should be merged. Furthermore, I suggest taking things a step further: What is the distinction between "defunct" versus "destroyed/demolished", and is it an important distinction? I realize an old hotel might be converted into another use, as opposed to being "destroyed/demolished", but nonetheless there seems to be too much rhetorical hair-splitting in the naming of these categories. Canadian2006 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is a good and proper subcat of Category:Collapsed buildings in the United States which in turn is a subcat Category:Disasters in the United States. Without this subcat each such hotel would have to be included in parent cat. There are enough such hotels in the cat to justify it and no doubt there will be more in the future. If better category names are needed, then justify the change, not provide fallacious reasoning for deletion. Hmains (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By what definition are destroyed building also collapsed buildings? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is Category:Collapsed buildings in the United States that should be renamed to 'Destroyed...'. 'Collapsed' is too specific; 'destroyed' is more general. Or a better name for both to make sure the category name matches the content which is buildings that are hit by man-made or natural disaster, not by intention of the owners to use the land for another purpose. The POV and subjective statements are canards. Either the building was hit by a disaster or it was not Hmains (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. AdjustShift (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2008 (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:Lists of laojiaos in the People's Republic of China[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: already deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of laojiaos in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category once consisted of 26 lists, all lists have been merged into List of Reeducation Through Labor camps in China with approval from User:Cdogsimmons, category is now empty. Consensus was reached at User talk:Politizer#Reeducation through labor to merge the articles. Notice of deletion proposal was posted at the talk page of the category and all articles formerly in the category, and no users have objected. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment is there something wrong in including 'laojiao' in the list article name? Hmains (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what they're commonly known as, I guess. I think the best solution would just be to have a redirect from "List of laojiao in the People's Republic of China" and edit the article lead-in (which I'm about to do now) to say something like "This is a list of reeducation through labor, or laojiao, camps in the People's Republic of China. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 23:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK good; Delete the category per nom since I saw the category before someone wrongly emptied it. No one should be expected to comment, however, on categories that have been emptied while they are under discussion here. That is often enough for comments here to say 'keep the category' due to proper procedures not being followed. Hmains (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category was emptied because I turned all the pages into redirect pages, deleting the rest of the content in them (including the category links). List of Re-education Through Labor camps in China could be a member of the category, but that would still make it a category that has (by definition) only one item, since that single list now contains everything that was originally contained in the category. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The cat is now empty, and I don't think it will be repopulated again. AdjustShift (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2008 (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/2008_October_17&oldid=1074801299"