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 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Nontrinitarian denominations per nom. This category seems to be a new creation of one editor who has created & populated the category in a very short period of time, I would like to hear his/her rationale & may change my opinion based on that. Kiore (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counter offer rationale. "Anti" implies an opposition to something. In the case of some faiths, it is the case that they are not actively opposed to the doctrine; either they don't make a big deal of it or are happy to be ambiguous about their position. It would be more accurate therefore, to say that they do not positively support the doctrine, that is, they are "Non fooism". This preserves the possibility that they are apathetic about the propsition as oppsed to actively combatting it. Secondly, it allows Christian demoninations to be assigned, unambiguously, as being either "Fooism" or "Non fooism" without pejorative terms being introduced. This allows neat dichotomous categories to be created. Ulimately, this was my intention with this category. That is, both Category:Trinitarianism and Category:Non Trinitarianism would become children of Category:Trinitarian dichotomy. This (compelling) logic is already present in the related categories of Category:Chalcedonianism and Category:Non Chalcedonianism which are in turn children of Category:Chalcedonian dichotomy. In this way it can be sen that Category:Nontrinitarian denominations is either a child of Category:Non Trinitarianism (along with the technical terms and people associated with Non Trinitarianism) or it can instead be merged into the parent category of Category:Non Trinitarianism. The latter is my preference. Also, the main article should be Re-named to "Non Trinitarism", but that's a discussion for another day perhaps. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Regarding the counter proposal, I expect that it is far more defining to be involved in "anti-trinitarianism" than it is to be involved in "non-trinitarianism", so I think Category:Antitrinitarianism should exist. If a church is ambiguous about its position or doesn't really care, chances are there are not reliable sources that would call them "non-trinitarian", so categorization would not be necessary. Not every Christian denomination needs to be categorized as either trinitarian or non-trinitarian—only those that are described as such in reliable sources. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm struggling to understand the logic of user Good Ol'factory. On the one hand he wants to retain the category "Nontrinitarian denominations", hence his "merge" vote; on the other hand he says that categorization would not be necessary which would lead one to conclude that he would advocate a "Delete" vote for all concerned. A third strand of his logic is that one or both categories could proceed if reliable sources could be found, which might, one is bound to conclude, lead him to advocate an "Oppose" vote. Like I say, I'm confused by his rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first assumption, that I want to retain Category:Nontrinitarian denominations, assumes too much about something I did not directly express an opinion on. That category has not been nominated for deletion here; if it was, then I might express a direct opinion on it. It may well be overcategorization, but that's a consideration for another day, or at least a different discussion. The bottom line of this nomination for me is that Category:Non Trinitarianism is duplicative of a pre-existing category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:45, 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.
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:Procedural move. The following was listed at WP:Stub types for deletion, for some reason. Relisting with no !vote.Grutness...wha? 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary category. There is no categories for every federal state in the USA. This category appears only in Texas Open (tennis)--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:11, 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:Southern University at Baton Rouge 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.
Support Merge to category that matches the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:54, 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.
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:category deleted by its creator, Rich Farmbrough. —David Levy 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost-empty category that's identical (except for a capitalisation difference) to the suggested merge target. If we want to avoid tagging the Main Page as uncategorised, as "Cat:Main page" says it's meant to do, we could always place the Main Page in "Cat:Main Page". Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/whatever As the main page is not even in that category, there's no reason to leave it lying around forever. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge it and add Main page to the merged category, or add main page to the nommed cat. The nommed cat is hidden, that's the only difference between the approaches. RichFarmbrough, 14:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge, we already have Category:Main Page, with the "P" capitalised as it should be and if the only use this has is apparently to stop Rich tagging the MP as uncategorised. If that's the case then, sorry, Rich, but you need to be more careful with AWB. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Rich listed a couple of other supposed "benefits" on the category's page, but neither is of any actual value (as I've explained at Category talk:Main page). Rich is grasping at straws to avoid acknowledging that the category's only real purpose is to prevent him from making a mistake that he should be capable of preventing on his own. —David Levy 16:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my above comments. —David Levy 16:48, 28 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:Documentary films about the visual arts[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. Kbdank71 16:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It just occurred to me that we could do without the article in this category name. I think it may have snuck in there because the parent category, Category:Documentary films about the artsdoes need a "the," at least to my ears. But I would suggest that the renamed category works fine without it, and generally we do avoid using unnecessary articles in names for things here. Anyone agree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "the trade" they're usually (often erroneously) referred to as the visual arts, so I'd expect the article to be there. I say often erroneously because several "visual" arts are every bit as much auditory (e.g., performance art, mixed-media art), so it's not a brilliant name for them. It gets the point across of what they are, though, and other than the somewhat pompous "fine arts", I cannot think of a better alternative. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 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:American expatriate basketball people in Canada[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/withdrawn. Kbdank71 16:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is being applied towards non-Canadians who played for the Toronto Raptors (or the Vancouver Grizzlies). It's redundant because the article should already have a "People from __" category, and a "Toronto Raptors players" category. Besides the redundancy, it seems to imply that they have taken a residence in Canada instead of the reality of the subject temporarily playing for a team. CutOffTies (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - now that I see the other cats, and see the benefit if for example it's the Spain category and you can put someone who played in Barcelona and another who played in Madrid. The Canada cat still seems a bit funny but I guess that's not reason enough to break from the norm and delete it --CutOffTies (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Basketball people"? That seems a very awkward phrasing to me...why not "Basketball players"? - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it also include coaches, team owners, sportscasters, trainers, etc.? I think that's the usual explanation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 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.
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 16:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The key article is at Amazon River, and the category's current name is somewhat ambiguous (it could be about an online book retailers or a big woman). Most other categories within Category:Categories named after rivers seem to have "River" as part of their names, too, so it wouldn't make it an odd-one-out. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the Amazon basin or rainforest are also likely. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be a mix of categories dealing with the river and the rainforest. For example, Category:Fauna of the Amazon includes fauna of the river and fauna of the rainforest. For this reason, I'm not sure if a straight rename would be correct, or if the category is somehow acting as a container for everything to do with the Amazon "region". Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this category has, among its parents, Category:Amazon basin, shouldn't the non-river categories go into that? Grutness...wha? 08:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—sounds good to me; I suppose some clean-up will be in order. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with user Choster. The renamed cat should have Amazon basin as its parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but clean-up will be needed to move some articles and categories to Category:Amazon basin instead of this category for the river. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covering both river and basinRename per nom. ,... a rather impossible distinction. Where do settlements on the river go? The likelihood of confusion is low. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across this category more than once and it never fails to confuse me what exactly it is referring to! Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason I brought it here was that I found it confusing. So the likelihood of confusion doesn't seem to be that low. In any case, the category doesn't contain articles on the Amazon basin - they're in Category:Amazon basin. Which this is a subcategory of, not, as you (Johnbod, that is, not GO) suggest, the other way round. As to where do settlements on the river go, that depends: what category do river settlements go in for other categories - the ones for the river, or the one for any surrounding geographic feature? Chelsea, London is in a subcategory (for populated places) of Category:River Thames. New Orleans is in a subcategory (for populated places) of Category:Mississippi River. And both of those rivers also have separate categories for their respective basins. Grutness...wha? 10:22, 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:Cricket grounds 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.
Perhaps those categories you mentioned should be subcategories of the category in question, which should be a holding category for them? - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 02:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was the situation before the category was emptied on November 11th. At the moment, they're all incorrectly members of Category:Cricket grounds by country. - Eureka Lott 02:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate per bhg Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A strong defining characteristic for which there is no reason to have depopulated the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 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.
