Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Category:Former horse racing venues in the United Kingdom[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former horse racing venues in the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct horse racing venues in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's the only subcategory of Category:Defunct horse racing venues that doesn't use "defunct". It's the only subcategory of Category:Defunct sports venues in the United Kingdom that doesn't use "defunct". And of the 70+ categories in the entire category tree of Category:Defunct sports venues it's one of only four which don't use "defunct". Grutness...wha? 10:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:26, 21 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.

Category:Great Basin counties in Utah[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I was not aware that the Great Basin as a land form had counties. In any case, OC small with little chances of growth. Also not likely to be defining for the counties. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ... Didn't we just ... ? Oh, that was the parent Great Basin counties. Delete this subcategory too for the same reason—we don't categorize counties by geographical features they contain. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, we just did. As we remove some of these, it it easier to find what hubris remains. Ah, this was nominated as a speedy since it was empty. But something was added and the speedy declined. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:11, 21 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.

USGS HUCs[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 Sierra Crest and Feather Headwaters with no prejudice for a separate discussion being started on them; delete rest.. Dana boomer (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. More of our favorite USGS HUCs of which there are over 200,000 and related categories. Note that the introductions have been removed in some cases making the inclusion criteria for these rather subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal "introductions have been removed" is not a valid reason for deletion, and were improper as categories are to have an explanation of scope, e.g., Template:Cat exp. 98.235.30.38 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is no rationale for deletion. There are specific reasons that are acceptable to give for deletion nominations. This is not one of them. Hmains (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Several past CfD have supported the fact that being a USGS HUC is not defining and not notable. It is nothing more then a database entry. In fact, various discussions in many places also show that these names are not reflective of the actual name of the item and commonly conflict with most other sources and are not the common names. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebuttal: "being a USGS HUC" [sic] is not the reason you identified for deletion of these, nor is non-notability, as of course these watersheds are indeed notable. Moreover, nobody has asserted they are notable solely because each has a hydrological unit code (huc), as of course Category:Sierra Crest & Category:Great Basin valleys and basins aren't even a hydrological unit. 98.235.30.38 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Hmains... (I almost messaged him, knowing his dealings in Wikipedia). (You, ...are still trying to delete: a watershed to the Colorado, a watershed to Lake Mead, and a section of the Colorado (that borders the Great Basin Divide-(Eldorado Mountains).. the Havasu-Mohave Lakes Watershed, of Nevada, Arizona, California.)Mmcannis (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mmcannis (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to delete watersheds, just categories that are for USGS HUCs which have not established notability and a defining nature. If any USGS HUCs are notable, you can create articles. The problem is that categories are not articles and they need to be defining for the included articles. The other issue with the USGS HUCs is that they may or may not actually reflect common usage as names so naming is problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal: Regarding "that categories are not articles" -- nobody has asserted that these categories are articles, particularly since several if not most have corrsponding Cat main articles. Moreover, deleting as "not established notability" is not the reason you identified for deleting, nor was "may not reflect common usage as names" which would be a reason for renaming, not deletion. 98.235.30.38 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Vegas, could I suggest you ~~like~~ link to a few of those closed CfDs here? It might help people like me who haven't been following the "USGS HUC" issue, and speed things along. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 and 2 cover a number of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm of the opinion that these are borderline notable—an article would be iffy for most of them, but certainly a category is inappropriate for the topic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of these might be good to keep, and not all are USGS HUCs (at least Sierra Crest isn't). The only one I have trouble with is Feather Headwaters. The river is not that large, why split up Category:Feather River? It's easier to see the usefulness of a Missouri Headwaters category since the Missouri is such a long and important river. Mainly though, I'm posting to point out the difficulty of considering all these categories together. Pfly (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to cross out those that should be discussed at a later time. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Crest category probably worth saving, since it is notable apart from being a USGS HUC. I would say Delete the rest. —hike395 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sierra Crest isn't a hydrological unit -- it is mostly a part of the much greater (i.e., notable) Great Basin Divide, which had its more-notable-than-Sierra-Crest-category deleted not too long ago. 98.235.30.38 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, except Sierra Crest, I can see where that one is worth saving. Kmusser (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being one of "over 200,000" is not a valid deletion reason and all are notable categories in the Category:Watersheds of the United States and Category:Valleys of North America trees, except Category:Sierra Crest which meets the deletion criteria used to delete Category:Great Basin Divide. 98.235.30.38 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Havasu-Mohave Lakes Watershed - this one, at least, is not a watershed in the normal sense of the word, it is the drainage area of a fairly arbitrary USGS-defined section of the Colorado River. There's hardly any streams of note other than the Colorado in this hydrologic unit. Pfly (talk) 19:19, 30 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.

Category:UAVs and drones[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 Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles (for bot purposes). Manually split out the drones into Category:Target drones. Kbdank71 16:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UAVs and drones to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles and drones

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym and match name of main article. Since we don't have an article on drones in this area, a rename to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles might even be better. If this passes, can we speedy all of the children categories that are currently at speedy? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This name would also match what is being used for the land articles, Category:Unmanned ground vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should just be "Unmanned aerial vehicles", since drones would either be a subset or, for our purposes, indistinguishable from UAVs. Subcategories should use the "x of y" naming structure, such as "Unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States". Being able to match "Unmanned ground vehicles" is a bonus. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles. East of Borschov 08:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles with children categoies speedied - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note', however, that Category:Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance unmanned aerial vehicles is currently at Cfd on the 18th for renaming to "...UAVs"... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think target drones are a little bit different from UAVs. Marcus Qwertyus 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to oppose Strictly speaking, target drones are unmanned aerial vehicles. The question is can we retroactively apply the term? After consideration, I've decided to say no - and thus I change my vote to oppose this. Also, to address a concern the OP raised, there is an article on drones in the category - Target drone was way down in the 'T's. I've piped it now so it appears at the top (as it were). - 04:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Split There seems to be some strong inconsistencies as to what the various terms mean. If you look at unmanned aerial vehicle it more or less ignores use of vehicles as targets or as decoys; the emphasis is on vehicles which heretofore were manned but which can now to some extent be operated remotely. Target drones and decoys by their nature have always been unmanned. Therefore I would suggest Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles and Category: Target drones; perhaps the latter could be a subcategory of the former but it clearly can be a category in its own right. (Category:Decoy missiles already exists.) Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to a split if that is a better solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Mangoe wholeheartedly. Suggest the following tree:

Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles > Category:Target drones

> Category:Decoy missiles (with DM being also a subcat of Category:Guided missiles by mission as it is now)

...with the current child categories being speedied to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of Foo, with target drones of Foo categories being set up if needed. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:05, 23 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.

Category:Great Salt Lake Desert[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 The HUC info has been removed, and per the discussion, would make a good category now. No consensus as to whether or not this should be renamed to include "watersheds". Kbdank71 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another one of these almost articles masquerading as a category. In this case, as we may find being typical when we name based on the the USGS HUCs, the correct category name is probably Category:Great Salt Lake Desert watersheds since that is probably what best describes the material here. So having 200,000 articles for the HUCs is not likely and creating something less then 200,000 categories should also be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I can see how a category like this could possibly be useful, but not as a HUC home. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just delete the HUC info, would make a perfectly good category without it. Kmusser (talk) 18:08, 27 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.

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gettysburg Battlefield to Category:Battle Fields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The main article provides ample navigation and there is no need for this extra level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, what is the correct spelling of Battle Fields in the target category? Should that be Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge Battlefield (no space) would be the correct name here, but the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should be kept and expanded. The Battle of Gettysburg was the most important battle here and the only one remembered in the American mind Hmains (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But does importance equate to needing a small category that hiders rather then improves navigation? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is, but that's why there's the previous category being merged to. Support merge. And rename the parent category to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Category:Battlefields of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War per nom and The Bushranger. (The target category has been speedily renamed since this nomination was started.) There is no need for a small category which only adds an extra level. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 29 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.

Category:Functionalism architecture[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 as nominated. There is not a super strong consensus here for Category:Functionalist architecture over Category:Functionalism (architecture), so if anyone ever feels strongly that it should be changed to Category:Functionalism (architecture), I think that such a nomination should be allowed to proceed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Functionalism architecture to Category:Functionalist architecture

Nominator's rationale: The category appears to have been named by simply removing the parentheses from the parent article Functionalism (architecture). But in doing so, we've created a grammatical error, it seems to me. I prefer renaming as nominated, after verifying via Google that the adjective "functionalist" is used in describing this branch of modernist architecture. But others may prefer renaming to match the parent article, with "(architecture)" as a disambiguation for the noun functionalism. I do believe that either would be better than what we have now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming. More for noun - [Functionalism (architecture)] option above. The other option, adjective [Functionalist architecture], could be misconstrued by general readers as 'utilitarian service structures,' so a bit less supportive of that - unless consensus chooses it of course---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a rename, on the whole per nom, though I see Look's point. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 19 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.

Democratic Party United States Senators[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: oppose nominated rename. No consensus on any other format. Kbdank71 17:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Democratic Party United States Senators to Category:Democratic United States Senators

Propose renaming Category:Republican Party United States Senators to Category:Republican United States Senators

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 'Democratic Party' and 'Republican Party' are nouns, not adjectives. A Senator is Democratic, not Democratic Party. Reywas92^Talk 03:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is Be that as it may be, all the siblings of these cats are named in the same way. This change would produce ambiguous results; including the word 'party' is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)
do not rename; including "Party" on these is consistent with Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians and Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians and the general format for politicians categories. (Just using "Republican" as an adjective is also potentially more ambiguous with respect to Category:National Republican Party United States Senators, Category:Liberal Republican Party United States Senators, and Category:Silver Republican Party United States Senators, since those three could also be described by the adjective "Republican".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment isn't it possible that the terms (e.g. Democratic Party) have also become adjectives as well as nouns through the way they are used? Tom B (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Democratic is a common known, so is republican. There have been monarchist US senators, and anti-democratic senators. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and rename to Category:United States Senators of the Fooian Party format. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Democratic Party (United States) senators etc to be consistent with politicians categories. "United States" is a necessary disambiguator, but as such should be in brackets. Omitting "party" would be misleading. I presume that all US senators are both democrats and republicans but either Democrats or Republicans (by party). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we rename to that format, we are then departing from the standard format of the subcategories of Category:United States Senators, so we have to choose which tree to follow, unless we want Category:Democratic Party (United States) United States Senators, which I assume we do not. And your presumption that all U.S. Senators are either Democrats or Republicans by party is incorrect: see Category:United States Senators by party. Also, there are State Senators which are not "United States Senators" and there are many State Senators of these two parties; thus your suggestion is either ambiguous or dramatically expands the category to include State Senators of the parties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Why doesn't this fall under "X of Y" naming conditions? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One could say it does, but as I said above, we have two category trees to base that argument on. The one tree is Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians, and the other is Category:United States Senators. If we faithfully combined the two as "X of Y" would suggest, it would result in Category:Democratic Party (United States) United States Senators, and when I created it I thought that was overdoing it, so opted for Category:Democratic Party United States Senators. If you mean why don't we just adhere to the standard set out in Category:United States Senators by party, I think that is a good argument but the entire tree is very new and all created by me, so it would be a bit silly to create an entire tree and then argue it has to remain as created to conform with "X of Y". I'm open to change if applied to all the categories, but I haven't seen any suggestions that I think are better than what already exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, that does clarify things somewhat. But...actually, I was referring to (for example) Category:United States Senators of the (Insert Party Name Here) Party. Which I realise now is more "Y of X"... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see—my apologies. Is there some sort of pre-existing convention to name according to that format? The "X of Y" rule usually only applies if there are pre-existing categories in the same or very similar area named in a particular format. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No worries! And I'm not sure. It just seems to me that that would possibly be the least-awkward phrasing. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over categorization. Politicians are elected to positions (generally multiple positions) by the people of their districts. Creating party-position categories like these justify the creation of hundreds of unhelpful categories. Lets stick with the party-state categorization we have had up to this point.--TM 16:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's fair to say we have stuck only with party–state categorizations for politicians. There are many party–postion categories, such as those in Category:British MPs by political party, Category:Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives by party, Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons by political party, Category:Alberta MLAs by political party, and so forth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 2 December 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.

Category:Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington alumni[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington alumni to Category:Indiana University Maurer School of Law alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:16, 21 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.

Category:Creative Commons licensed journals[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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Creative Commons licensed journals to Category:Creative Commons-licensed journals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with other "Creative Commons-licensed [medium]" categories. Trivialist (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent and sister cats.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 22 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.

Category:Christian priestesses[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 Category:Ordained Christian women.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian priestesses to Category:Female Christian priests

Nominator's rationale: The term "priestess" is rarely used for ordained woman in the Christian faith. Women are ordained to the same posts as men, and those posts are described as "priests". Timrollpickering (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I prefer Category:Ordained Christian women, as "priest" is not used by many/most of the denominations concerned. Or per nom. Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The parent is named Christian priests, so there's no problem using the same terminology here. Jafeluv (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is! "Priests" is a term much used in Christian contexts, but "priestesses" just isn't! Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's why I support renaming the category. Jafeluv (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Preistess" is widely considered pejorative, and the preferred term is "female priest". BTW for the same reason the parent category should be Category:Female Christian clergy and religious and not Category:Priestesses. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not among, say, Baptists it isn't! But some Anglicans won't like "ministers". On the other point, both categories should be parents; possibly Category:Priestesses should be renamed, though I can live with it. Most of the Category:Female Christian clergy and religious are of course nuns. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Baptists start having priests, that I didn't notice? But you allude to an issue that does bother me a bit; I'm not convinced that "priestess" (or "priest", for that matter) is a properly-formed class. There's something to be said for keeping all Christian clergy under their own category hierarchy. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Baptists don't have priests - that's my point. I don't see a problem with the priests category; the main Christian category is of course Category:Christian clergy. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename somehow. The anglicans retained the word priest as an abbreviation for presbyter. Female clergy are a recent innovation and the term "priestess" has only been used as a term of abuse by opponents of their ordination. "Female clergy" would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete Looking into the hierarchy a bit more leads to some definite questions here. First, there are some bishops who are also categorized as priests—technically true, but in general unhelpful. I suggest taking all the bishops out of the priest categories. After that, most of the women who are priests are actually filed under some national church category (e.g. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale is under Category:American Episcopal priests). Furthermore, of the three women who are the only members of the category currently under discussion, only one of them is unquestionably a priest. Ludmila Javorová claims to have been ordained secretly (very dubious) and Victoria Zormelo-Gorleku represents a church which as far as I can tell does not style its clerics as priests. The third member, Angela Berners-Wilson, can be moved to Category:English Anglican priests along with the list article which is the fourth and last page in the category, and the other two should not be categorized as priests. Probably all of the women who are priests or bishops or whatever can be put directly in the female clergy category. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with that. Frankly the logic is very odd here! The female bishops category could be made a sub of this one, and should. That they are also in national categories is neither here nor there. Are you really saying female Christian clergy don't rate a seperate female category? That would need a lot of argument, & you produce none. The "secret" ones are obviously controversial, but they are really only notable as being claimed to be female priests, so you are seeking to remove their primary category, which is rarely a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "types of clergy" structure, bishops and priests (and deacons/deaconesses as well) are all at the same level of the hierarchy; also, in the Lutheran and Methodist traditions the title "bishop" is used but not "priest", so it isn't always true that a bishop is also a priest. The problem I'm getting at is where to make the intersection. One could argue, for instance, that female clergy should be subcategorized at the farthest reaches of the category tree, so that for instance the Rev. Ragsdale mentioned above would go in Category:Female American Episcopal priests. Or one could argue that division should be made at the communion/tradition level so that she would remain in her current category and also be found in Category:Female Anglican priests. Or we could simply class her under Category:Female Christian clergy and religious and leave it at that, although really the religious (i.e. monastics) and clerics ought to be in separate categories. As for our one "secret" case, accoprding to the body into which she was supposedly ordained, it didn't "work", so she shouldn't be categorized as if she were in fact a legitimate priest. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ordained Christian women would avoid many of these difficulties. There are so far few enough in the category that it would be ridiculous to disperse, nor would that remove the need for a head category. Under a sacramental theology, whether the church thinks an ordination took place may not be the last word on whether one did. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. My first choice would be Category:Ordained Christian women per Johnbod, because several of the churches don't call them priests. My second choice would be to rename per the nominator, as "priestesses" is used even less commonly in the Christian context than "female priests" or "women priests". I definitely think that this is a topic where separate categories for men and women in warranted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 25 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.