Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

April 28[edit]

Romani Sportspeople[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, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 11. Dana boomer (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2011 (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:Famous animals[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:Individual animals. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Famous animals to Category:Notable animals
Nominator's rationale: Rename as proposed or to Category:Individual animals. We tend to avoid famous in category names. I'll note that there was a previous no consensus discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to Category:Individual animals. Both "famous" and "notable" are discouraged. If they are not notable there will not be an article for them. The goal here is to make it clear that these categories are for a specific animal, not where you put articles on a breed or species.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "Individual animals". Famous and notable do not discern if they are about the class of animal as a whole or and individual. Pandas are famous animals, all Great Pandas. Great White Sharks as a group are notable. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, -- the idea of "individual animals might require some thought if people start dumping whole species in there. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (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:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations[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) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not an encyclopedic category. Simply serves to support the POV that a rabbinical ordination can be combined with an occupation. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there some controversy over whether Orthodox Rabbis are permitted to also work in secular employment?  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know. In fact, Jewish teachings bring examples of many talmudic rabbi's who had secular professions as well. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're from Debresser, but this issue is one of the main bones of contention between haredim and the secular in Israel. Ask any black roshei yeshiva and you will almost alway get the answer that boys must stay in learning without taking qualifications, and when ,married better if the wife works to support the family. The hardeim are in poverty b/c employment is not encouarged by their leaders. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am presently from Jerusalem. And I am a rabbi myself. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reform? What is a haredi rabbi doing on the internet? Only heter according to gedolim is for business. Lubavitch semicha doesn't exactly count. Chesdovi (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haredi. Let's not go into the so-called "gedolim". Nor do I care much for your disrespect of Lubavitcher smiche. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both non-defining and wrong (most of the members predate the denominational differences implied by "Orthodox.") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable cat, showing that there were great rabbis who had a livelihood to support thier failies instead of becoming a burden to society and relying on state handouts. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user was the original creator of this category, who continues to populate it even while this dicsussion is continuing. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocracy. Debresser depopulted nearly a hundred pages while discussion is taking place about Palestinian rabbis! Chesdovi (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the logic in that. Debresser (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as per not a defining description - as useful as bald people with long hair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Pichpich (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Employment is frowed upon in modern day haredi orthodoxy. This cat shows that there were previous Judaic sages who supported themsleves, in direct opposition to the trend nowadays. Chesdovi (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it was a POV category after all?! All the more reason to delete it. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A notable and informative category, as I have explained. Chesdovi (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that employment is now frowned upon is an interesting fact that should be conveyed through other means. Pichpich (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as is done with most categories that categorize people by combining 2 or more occupations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out to OhioStandard that saying "this is more interesting thatn this other category (that does not exists) would be" makes no sense. I also fail to see why it is more interesting to have a category of Orthodox Rabbis who had other occupations than of Catholic Priests. If we were discussing a list I could understand it being more interesting, the rabbis other occupations might be more interesting, but in a category you just have people not anything about them. This category is about a non-defining intersection. This is almost as bad as a category named "people who have African and other ancestries" and then we thrown in people with Hawaiian, Irish and Cherokee ancestors. If this was Category:Orthodox Jewish rabbis who were laywers and we had a bucnh of sister categories things might make sense, but as it stands this is just a people who were and also were not a given thing. To follow my above listing this could also allow us to put those Orthodox Jews who were also lawyers in this category and in the Category:Lawyers who practiced another occupation. We want to nip this category in the bud. It almost seems to be one that could be listed as an example of "Categories not to create". Some of the above given statements of the creator also give me the feeling this is a POV-pushing category to be used as part of his broader attacks on the Heredim and their world-view. I actually agree that in general religious leaders should not be paid full-time, I am a Mormon afterall and virtually none of our leaders are paid, but I can see POV-pushing for what it is and think we need to delete categories that exist to POV-push.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (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.

People who died in Nazi concentration camps and Nazi Concentration Camp victims by camp[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps to Category:People killed in the Holocaust and rename Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by camp to People killed in Nazi death or prison camps by camp, the use of "concentration camp" is a euphamism that gives power to those who engage in Holocaust denial by ovbscuring the fact that these camps were not by and large designed to put people together in preparation for relocation or to open areas for others to settle or to undermine a rebellion, they were filled with gas chambers to kill most of their residents on arrival. These are very different than most things called concentration camps, and the applying of that label to these camps is a misleading euphamism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current set-up also creates the problem that the victims of the geneocidal attacks on the Jews and Gypsies, and the victims of the attempts by the Nazis to slaughter the intelligentsia of Poland to make the Poles into a people more easily enslaved, are not clearly at any level distinguished from those who were killed because they proactively resisted Nazi rule. The focus on those killed in camps is ignoring people slughtered by mass shooting by the Eisatzgruppen and other deaths that were part of the "Final Solution" or the genocide of the Gypsies or other orchestrated mass slaughters that did not occur in camps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The category is not tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why dod you mention that here instead of tagging the category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the nom needs to start with a rename of the likes of Auschwitz concentration camp and Category:Auschwitz concentration camp before getting down to this level of detail. ('Nazi concentration camp' is not a very cuddly euphemism.) Occuli (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is about the people dying in the camps and is significant as such. There are already broader categories covering the people killed by the Nazis in other places than the camps. This distintion should be kept. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is already a broader Category:People who died in the Holocaust. It is true that some of these camps were actually death camps, but most were still concentration camps and the term is a commonly used and understood one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea that "Nazi concentration camp" is a euphemism is news to me and probably 99% of the world. In fact the Nazi atrocities pretty much erased the original meaning of the term "concentration camp". Pichpich (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That these individuals died in a concentration camp is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk)
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:Nazi Concentration Camp Victims by Occupation[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation to Category:People killed in the Holocaust by occupation. Also rename its sub-categories to reflect the chanced name.
  • Nominators rational - Concentration Camps is an ill-defined term. The Death or extermination camps where the vast majority of people killed in the Holocaust died, specifically the gas champers, were only euphamistically called concentration camps, they were not such. There were also people lined up and shot by the einsatzgruppen who never went to camps, and people who died in other situations and conditions that did not make it to camps or did not die in the camps but would be counted as holocaust victims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is very similar to the cfd of Jan 2011 (and there is already Category:People who died in the Holocaust). Occuli (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is about the victims in the camps and is significant as such. There are already broader categories covering the victims in other places than the camps. This distinction should be kept. Hmains (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are victims in the camps notable by occupation, but victims of the holocaust overall are not notable by occupation? Also you are ignoring my point that most of these people died in death camps, not "concentration camps".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • New proposal, merge this with Category:Holocaust victims by occupation. The sizes of these categories do not justify the specific seperation of the cvategories that is going on in this case. It currently seems to be a potential case of over-categorizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only because it's a parent to the category structure. Reconsider the concept behind the structure. I will admit I am no expert on Nazi concentration camp practices but I have to wonder whether the people sorted based on being of a particular occupation and dying in a camp were in the camps because of their occupation. If it turns out that there are great swaths of people who were killed in the camps because they were lawyers or opera singers or pharmacologists, then fine. If not then my feeling is that categories for the intersection of "occupation" and "killed in a Nazi camp" should not exist. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2011 (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 Mormon missionaries and other Fooian Mormon missionaries[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Puerto Rican Mormon missionaries to Category:Puerto Rican Latter Day Saints
Category:French Mormon missionaries to Category:French Latter Day Saints.

John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino Mormon missionaries to Category:Filipino Latter Day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Argentine Mormon missionaries to Category:Argentine Latter Day Saints
Category:Mormon missionaries by nationality to Category:Latter Day Saints by nationality
Category:Guatemalan Mormon missionaries to Category:Guatemalan Latter Day Saints
Category:Honduran Mormon missionaries to Category:Honduran Latter Day Saints
Category:Peruvian Mormon missionaries to Category:Peruvian Latter Day Saints
Category:Icelandic Mormon missionaries to Category:Icelandic Latter Day Saints
Category:Australian Mormon missionaries to Category:Australian Latter Day Saints
Category:Mexican Mormon missionaries to Category:Mexican Latter Day Saints
Category:Belgian Mormon missionaries to Category:Belgian Latter Day Saints
Category:Brazilian Mormon missionaries to Category:Brazilian Latter Day SaintsJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British Mormon missionaries to Category:British Latter Day Saints
Category:English Mormon missionaries to Category:English Latter Day Saints
Category:Gibraltarian Mormon missionaries to Category:Gibraltarian Latter Day Saints
Category:Scottish Mormon missionaries to Category:Scottish Latter Day Saints
Category:Welsh Mormon missionaries to Category:Welsh Latter Day Saints
Category:Chilean Mormon missionaries to Category:Chilean Latter Day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chinese Mormon missionaries to Category:Chinese Latter Day Saints
Category:Hong Kong Mormon missionaries to Category:Hong Kong Latter Day Saints
Category:Colombian Mormon missionaries to Category:Colombian Latter Day Saints
Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo Mormon missionaries to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo Latter Day Saints
Category:Danish Mormon missionaries to Category:Danish Latter Day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dutch Mormon missionaries to Category:Dutch Latter Day Saints
Category:Estonian Mormon missionaries to Category:Estonian Latter Day Saints
Category:German Mormon missionaries to Category:German Latter Day SaintsJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hungarian Mormon missionaries to Category:Hungarian Latter Day Saints
Category:Irish Mormon missionaries to Category:Irish Latter Day Saints
Category:Italian Mormon missionaries to Category:Italian Latter Day Saints
Category:Japanese Mormon missionaries to Category:Japanese Latter Day Saints
Category:Kenyan Mormon missionaries to Category:Kenyan Latter Day Saints
Category:Korean Mormon missionaries, preferably delete this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:South Korean Mormon missionaries to Category:South Korean Latter Day Saints. preferably make this category a direct sub-cat of Category:Latter Day Saints by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New Zealand Mormon missionaries to Category:New Zealand Latter Day Saints
Category:Nigerian Mormon missionaries to Category:Nigerian Latter Day Saints
Category:Norwegian Mormon missionaries to Category:Norwegian Latter Day Saints
Category:portuguese Mormon missionaries to Category:Portuguese Latter Day Saints
Category:Salvadoran Mormon missionaries to Category:Salvadoran Latter Day Saints
Category:South African Mormon missionaries to Category:South African Latter Day Saints
Category:Spanish Mormon missionaries to Category:Spanish Latter Day Saints (however there is also a proposal standing to rename this to Category:Spaniard Latter Day Saints, see April 29th CfD listings)John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Swedish Mormon missionaries to Category:Swedish Latter Day Saints
Category:Swiss Mormon missionaries to Category:Swiss Latter Day Saints
Category:Uruguayan Mormon missionaries to Category:Uruguayan Latter Day Saints
Category:Venezuelan Mormon missionaries to Category:Venezuelan Latter Day SaintsJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators rational - Mormon missionaries in general serve for two years. A large portion of Mormons serve as missionaries at one point in their life. For most of the people in this category their having served a mission is not the main way even their being members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been expressed. Beyond this we have the question of whether "Mormon" should just designate members of that Church, all members of the Churches grouped as part of the Latter-day Saint movement, or some sub-set of members of the Latter-day Saint movement. There is nothing significant gained by having this as a sub-category of Category:American Latter Day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The category is not tagged. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having been a Mormon missionary is almost always relatively defining for those who were. If it's not defining for a given person that was a Mormon missionary, they don't have to be placed in the category. Mormon churches that are not the LDS Church, such as Mormon fundamentalists, do not send out full-time missionaries, so I see little chance of confusion by use the term "Mormon missionaries". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For at least one of the Fooian Mormon missionaries categories, the nominator manually emptied the category and blanked the category page: [1], [2]. That's not right and these other categories should be tagged with a template and listed here if they are to be nominated with this nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are there any members of the category that are actually notable as missionaries? I would support keeping the category if it was emptied of all members other than those notable for being missionaries, but, as the nominator notes, evangelism is a big thing in the LDS Church, with ~1/3 of Mormon men being missionaries...I clicked on about ten members of the category and it's not a defining feature for any of them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rosceese there are a few Mormon missionaries who it would make sense to categorize in this category. Joseph Standing, and probaby B. H. Roberts come to mind quickly. However while Jon Huntsman, Jr. being in Category:Mormon missionaries in Taiwan because that is where how he learned Mandarin wich was key to his being US ambassador to China, or Mitt Romney being in Category:Mormon missionaries in France because of various reasons, including his being declared dead while there, seem to be relevant, it seems more apropriate to put them in Category:American Latter Day Saints than in Category:Amerian Mormon missionares.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to have categories where we say "this aplies to lots of people, but we only want to put a few of those people in it". We do not say "there are lots of Harvard Univeristy alumni, but we should only put in that category people who that s central to their notability". In general people can be put in categories that do not directly relate to what makes them notable. I actually deliberately did not put Huntman in the Category:American Mormon missionaries at one point because due to his being US Ambassador to China this might be interpreted as implying he was funtioning as a Mormon missionary currently. Mormon missionary in Foo has the clear advantage of identifying the person with where they were when serving as a full-time missionary, which clearly shows that if they are Amercans in say Category:Mormon missionaries in Japan it is clear they are not still a missionary. This current category has that problem. Also what do you do with Charles A. Callis, an Irish-born man who joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at about age 10 in Liverpool, than immigrated to Utah, married a Utah woman (who happens to be my great-great aunt, but that is besides the point) and then spent 20+ years as a missionary and then mission president in the Southern States mission.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also an issue of why this category is so named. Other categories are Category:American Latter Day Saints and then there are not divided by nationality categores like Category:Mission presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Category:Bishops of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Category:Members of the First Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and so on. The whole naming structure does not seem consistent, and there seems little justification for having the seperate missionary categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The percentage of Latter-day Saint males who serve missions cited above is if anything decpetively low. Some percentage of those who do not serve missions identify so little with the Church that they would not qualify to be in Category:American Latter Day Saints, Category:French Latter Day Saints, Category:Mexican Latter Day Saints or whatever their nationality is anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My new listing is an example of why breaking this down by nationality does not mae sense. Category:Ghanaian Latter Day Saints only has 5 entries. Of those 2 are also in Category:Ghanaian Mormon missionaries although since Emmanual Abu Kissi was a counselor in the mission presidency and then acting mission president during "The Freeze" when Ghana banned all activities of the Church in the country, whether he even belongs in this ategory is hard to say, but if he does it becomes broader and even less disticntive than Roscelese's figures would suggest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More thoughts: 2 years is actually overstating how long many missionaries serve. 18 months if they are sister missionaries and variable times with senior missions. Wives of mission presidents, such as Heidi S. Swinton and Barbara W. Winder serve for three years and are called as missionaries and there are other exemtions, but 2 years at a time is the maximum for proably 90% of missionaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of French Latter Day Saints the category has 4 pages, and then there are two more in French Mormon missionaries which would give us a total of 6. Spilting the category just does not make sense at that size.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of the Chinese/Hong Kong categories there is only 1 (one) article in all four categories that currently exist. That is, in all 4 categories combined there is one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the case of the Korean/South Korean formulation it is unclear why the Korean level exists. All people are just at the South Korean level. I am not sure if I can make that nomination here, but that seems to be the logical action to take at this time. If there become notable North Korean Latter Day Saints in the future we can revist the situation then, but right now it seems we have unnecessary levels in categorization going on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have now tagged all the relevant categories. Of the two articles in Category:Venezuelan Latter Day Saints one is also in Category:Venezuelan Mormon missionaries. There seems to be little justification for a category with two articles having a sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A point being overlooked here by the nominator is that these categories do more than just subdivide the FOOian Latter Day Saints categories. Another parent of them is the FOOian Christian missionaries categories, so having a subcategory for FOOian Mormon missionaries links them into the appropriate subcategories of Category:Christian missionaries and ultimately the Category:Missionaries tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • However in many Christian denominations missionaries are a defined group who serve for long periods of time, normally at least a decade. Under that situation the system makes sense, but with the Mormon missionary system the classification system as it exists now does not make sense. At a minimum it seems we should designate these as categories where people go in both the category and the parents category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, my point about missionaries by place served being a more useful category scheme to some extent answers Olfactory's point. We would under these nominations keep the missionaries by place served categories, and those also are in the missionaries tree, so we would not by these upmergings remove anyone from the missionary tree, with the possible exemption of a few people where it is said they served a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but not specified where they served. In that case it is hard to see how their mission is inportant enough to categorize them by, if no one knows where they went.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Currently, the entire Category:Christian missionaries tree is subcategorized by nationality and also by location of missionary service. I don't see any reason the Mormon ones would be any different in that regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the way they are. Not all people who have been Mormon missionaries are also currently Latter Day Saints, so that would be less (or not) accurate. Also, the point made by Good Ol’factory is a valid one. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:18, 20 May 2011 (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:Johnson Bible College 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: Speedy rename C2C per precedent of using current institution name. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Johnson Bible College alumni to Category:Johnson University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Johnson Bible College has, effective 28 April 2011, renamed itself Johnson University. This will bring the category name in line with the article title. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the general pattern is to rename alumni category to reflect the current names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (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:Programming constructs[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: Withdrawn by nom. Dana boomer (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Programming constructs to Category:Programming language concepts
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. —Ruud 15:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Withdraw for now. —Ruud 11:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Programming constructs are a proper subset of programming concepts and should be kept separate as presently done. "Programming contructs" is used in the ordinary vocabulary of IT staff. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually should have proposed "Programming constructs" for renaming, but had already created "Programming language concepts" before I realized this. I think is a more accurate and established name for describing the articles currently in the category "Programming constructs" (see e.g. some of the titles at Programming language#Further reading. When I hear the term "Programming constructs", I'm reminded more of design patters and concepts like Duff's device, which are currently not listed in this category. —Ruud 11:22, 29 April 2011 (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:Vocal-instrumental duet albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Vocal-instrumental duet albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow criteria for inclusion. Very few such albums exist. Redundant to duet albums category. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:23, 8 April 2011 (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) 13:47, 28 April 2011 (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:Formal semantics[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Formal semantics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There isn't really a field called "Formal semantics of everything". There are formal semantic approaches in (formal) logic, programming languages, and linguistics. The main article was turned into a disambiguation. The category is too broad to be useful; WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I get the point but I feel there's still some link between the three topics on the disambiguation page. These topics have developed into meaningful and almost entirely separate subfields of logic, theoretical computer science and linguistics but they have strong common historical roots. I could be convinced to delete this cat but it certainly won't be on the grounds of WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (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) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and JPL. —Ruud 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Formal semantics is 3 distinct but so-named fields. If either or all of the fields are category worthy, categories should be named that specify the category is for Formal symantics in logic, or in programming languages or in linguistics.John Pack Lambert (talk)
  • Keep. There are important shared meaning elements that warrant inclusion in a common category, and likewise support Pichpich's rationale based on historical derivation of the now-distinct branches from a common root set of concepts.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you given some concrete examples of supposedly "shared meaning elements" (I can only even guess what you mean by this)? —Ruud 11:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could have used the web to discover that it's a term from lexicography. For example, say, declare, maintain, infer, imply, state, suggest, recommend, vouch, intuit aren't synonyms, but they carry multiple elements of meaning in common, e.g. "to communicate" is one. Now that you have the definition, you should be able to generate as many concrete examples as you like. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're still making absolutely no sense to me. Could you try expressing yourself more clearly? I assume your intended meaning is something along the lines of "the three distinct field, all named formal semantics, share a number of concepts and thus articles". However, unless you can show me a number of articles for which this is the case, I'm going to claim this is not true. —Ruud 16:00, 2 May 2011 (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:Depictions of Genghis Khan on song[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. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Depictions of Genghis Khan on song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Needlessly obscure, upmerge to Category:Depictions of Genghis Khan. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or Delete. One entry only and concur that it is needlessly obscure, also inappropriate name, if anything it should be "Depictions of Genghis Khan in song". The category's creator has a long history of creating these inappropriate and/or misnamed categories. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – "Depiction is meaning conveyed through pictures" ... I'd go for 'Songs about GK' myself (if at all). Occuli (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also means "to portray or describe in words", according to the Oxford English Dictionary (and most dictionaries), and is often used that way. The WP article focuses on a very specific aspect of the word. The "depiction" part of the category isn't the problem. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok with the upmerge. Depiction has a much wider meaning than what the en.wiki depiction article suggests. (This is off-topic but that article is a mess) Pichpich (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2011 (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:Famous seals[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:Individual seals and sea lions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Famous seals to Category:Famous pinnipeds
Nominator's rationale: Sea lions, etc., are included in this category at the moment. Prefer systematic name in line with Category:Famous cetaceans. TiC (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Catgegory:Individual seals and sea lions. This seems to be the most consistent with other cat names and will be the easiest to work with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2011 (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/2011_April_28&oldid=1138394744"