Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Works about the Battle of Gettysburg[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Works about the Battle of Gettysburg to Category:American Civil War films
Nominator's rationale: Seems like another case of overcategorization. Two articles is not really enough for a seperate category. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't notice that. Gettysburg 1863 would go into the Works about the American Civil War category. Wild Wolf (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2012 (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:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Irish local government councils
Nominator's rationale: The "LAU-1" in the title is a piece of EU-jargon which is misapplied here.
LAU-1refers to a first-tier local administrative unit, a concept used for the purpose of statistics in the European Union. The concept is so little used outside of that narrow statistical context that it does not appear to to be mentioned in any of the articles in this category, which is unsurprising because the statistical unit is the county, not the council. In other countries, LAU-1 categorisation is applied to the geographical area of a local government unit, not to the body which administers that area (and which in Ireland is unlikely to have any significant statistical function, such tasks in Ireland being handled by the Central Statistics Office).
When created, the category was used to sub-categorise Category:Irish local government councils, and included city councils and county councils. I have now moved the councils to new sub-categories (Cat:County councils in the Republic of Ireland and Cat:City councils in the Republic of Ireland), and upmerging this misconceived category will place those sub-cats neatly in Category:Irish local government councils, alongside the pre-existing Category:Town councils in the Republic of Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly makes more sense. Go for it. DubhEire (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator's rationale. Snappy (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It makes more sense as per every other EU country. (There is no Category:LAU-1 authorities in X country for any other EU state). Mac Tíre Cowag 13:04, 29 January 2012 (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:Operation Sandblast[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 - Note that all the category's members are linked in either Operation Sandblast, USS Triton (SSRN-586), or both. - jc37 05:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Operation Sandblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Populated category which is defining for each of the articles. Room to grow with the soon-to-be-built Triton Park, Beneath the Waves by Edward Finch, and the Operation Sandblast stamp series. (It had a ridculous number of redundant parent cats which I just cleaned up though.)RevelationDirect (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The categ currently contains only four articles, all of which are adequately inter-linked, and I don't think that's enough to evade the warnings of WP:SMALLCAT. The case for retention would be a little stronger if we actually had articles on Triton Park and Beneath the Waves, but I dislike creating categs before there are enough articles to populate them properly: small categories just cause navigational clutter, and should be avoided unless they are part of an established series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Part of WP:SMALLCAT is no potential for growth. (I do agree that the current 4 articles is a small cat though, obviously.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the originator, I was planning to do a Triton Park, my work schedule permitting. I am also sure that I can contact Dr. Finch and he can put together an article on Beneath the Waves. If any MILHIST administrator or editor can bear a hand on this for either of us, that would be appreciated. For myself, I am unfamiliar about how to organize an article on public parks although I have ample material to do the Triton Park. In any case, let us give this a try without having a stop-watch ticking away on the possible deletion of this category. Operation Sandblast was a significant historical event, with many inter-related factors t be considered and catergorized. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I hope that you don't ask an author to write an article on hir own book, because that would be blatant self-promotion per WP:COI. There is no ticking clock: editors remain free to write articles on notable topics, regardless of whether a category exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Please note the discussion regarding the reason for the deletion of the Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), which noted that if this category was retained, which it wasn't, then the Category:Operation Sandblast whould be deleted. Now Category:Operation Sandblast is being considered for deletion. Draw your own conclusions. Marcd30319 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume good faith, so the conclusion I draw is that the nominator looked at this category and thought it was i inappropriate for the reasons stated in the nomination. I trust that you also assume good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The stated reason for the deletion of Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), was that if it was retained, then the Category:Operation Sandblast would be considered redundant and be deleted. So, Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586) was deleted, and now Category:Operation Sandblast is being considered for deletion. May I point out that duting the discussion about deleting Category: USS Triton (SSRN-586), it was pointed out that several other single-ship class categories already exist (Category:Long Beach class cruisers, Category:Truxtun class cruisers, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers), and as you can see, all three are even less populated than Category:Operation Sandblast. Draw your own conclusions, but the weakly populated assertion is not logical or consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcd30319 (talk • contribs)
    As Good Ol'factory notes below, you misread WP:SMALLCAT, so the comparison with the other categs is a non-runner.
    The comment in the previous discussion correctly noted that there was no need for two near-identical categories, but a) it did not address the question of whether either of them was needed, and b) it does not bind this discussion. This discussion takes place in the knowledge that a category for the ship no longer exists, so it is clearly focused on the question of whether or not to keep the category for Operation Sandblast. Unfortunately, you seem to be starting from the mistaken assumption that one or other of the two categories must exist; in fact, there is no presumption that either of them is appropriate, and if you want this category to stay you should try to offer some reasons founded in policy or guidelines rather than repeatedly inviting editors to draw adverse conclusions about the conduct of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and it sounds like bait and switch. I know how things work. If an administrator decides something has to go or be changed, it will disappear or be changed, and contrary opinions be damned. There is no attempt to help or examine alternatives. Even when the discussion doesn't lead to deletion, the resulting discussion is one where your betters tolerate the facade of intellectual debate or utility in favor of obtuse or self-serving rules. You guys are a bunch of small-town cops at a speed trap collecting tickets and fines. So do whatever you want to do because you are going to do so in any case. Hope everyone have a nice day, and good luck in your search for a real job.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. Weakly populated and all the articles in it are adequately interlinked. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the fact that other single-ship class categories already exist (Category:Long Beach class cruisers, Category:Truxtun class cruisers, Category:Bainbridge class cruisers), and they are less populated than Category:Operation Sandblast, the weakly populated argument is not compelling, conistent or logical given the framework of this discussion. Marcd30319 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it is. Those are part of a large, overall scheme of subcategorization; this is not. That's an explicit exception in WP:SMALLCAT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT: Although I don't agree with how Marcd30319 has expressed himself, WP:SMALLCAT needlessly leads to these disagreements by not giving a numeric cutoff for what is a small cat. Any cat that is under X (5, 10, 12) articles should just be a speedy delete unless it is part of a series. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The category creator has emptied the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2012 (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:Roman Catholic orders and societies in Ireland[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: Upmere. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in Ireland to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Ireland
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation per WP:SMALLCAT. This newly-created category contains only one article and one (newly-created) sub-category. I can see no other equivalent "Roman Catholic orders and societies in country" categories, and a peek at Category:Roman Catholic Church in Ireland shows no sign of other articles which should belong there.
Upmerger to its parent category seems the best solution. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (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:Franciscans in Ireland[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Franciscans in Ireland to Category:Irish Franciscans
Nominator's rationale: So far as I can see, there are no other categories for religious organisation-in-country. The closest I can find is Category:Jesuits by nationality, which includes Category:Russian Jesuits, Category:French Jesuits, all of which are categories for people who are members of that religious order, rather than all things relating to that order.
There is no equivalent Category:Franciscans by nationality, but it seems better to replicate an existing structure than to start a new mode of categorising the activities and members of religious orders.
If this renaming proceeds, Category:Franciscans by nationality should be created with Category:Irish Franciscans as a subcat, and the new category purged of non-biographical articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category as currently constituted would work fine with the proposed target, but it is relatively common for Catholic clerics to be transferred from country to country. At the same time, the work of the religious orders in particular parts of the world can and does rise to notability; for example, there is scholarship contrasting the Franciscan and Jesuit approaches to evangelization in China. So, while I don't object to this particular rename, I believe the distinction will become significant over time, and we should have no prejudice against re-creating Franciscans in Ireland should it be merited in the future.- choster (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2012 (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:Japan during Cold War[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Japan during Cold War to Category:Cold War history of Japan
Nominator's rationale: better grammar and to suit the parent cat of Category:Cold War history by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:30, 22 January 2012 (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:Albums produced by L.A. Reid and Babyface[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: Split. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albums produced by L.A. Reid and Babyface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: /Split As there is no article on L. A. Reid and Babyface. If their collaboration is that significant to warrant a properly-sourced article, then this can be recreated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:02, 22 January 2012 (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:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID to Category:Chemical compounds which do not have a ChemSpiderID
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As stated on the category page, this is for "compounds which do not have, and will never have a ChemSpider ID", i.e. not a property of the page but of the compound discussed there. The current title seems to suggest that the ChemSpider ID is missing and should be added. Another possibility would be Category:Chemical compounds without a ChemSpiderID – more concise, but possibly not quite as clear. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (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:Church buildings in the United States by state[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Church buildings in the United States by state to Category:Churches in the United States by state
Nominator's rationale: This would return the category to the name it had before yesterday. The recent move that created the current name [a speedy rename, BTW] was in error, as pointed out in the opposition to the proposed speedy renaming of the categories it contains. Although many articles in the contained categories are elegies to buildings, many others are actually about a local church organization (e.g., a parish) that may or may not occupy a particular building. Orlady (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed name is ambiguous and the logic being used shows that this is ambiguous. There are two category tress for the very reason being used to support the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the two category trees may exist at a high level, but they are not developed at the local level. For example, the only articles slotted in the Category:Christianity in state tree are articles about broad topics, such as denominations. Categories like Category:Churches in Kentucky are included in both Category:Christianity in Kentucky and Category:Church buildings in the United States by state (which until two days ago was named Category:Churches in the United States by state). Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. If there is a desire to distinct category tree for articles that are entirely or partially about church buildings by location, I suggest setting up a separate set of categories for church buildings, rather than hijacking the only existing "churches by place" categories to focus exclusively on buildings. --Orlady (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Because "church" can mean both the congregation and the building it occupies, many local church articles cover both the congregation and its building; some are only about the congregation and some are only about the building. is quite right, but there are church buildings which have become mosques or office buildings. I support the change, but ask that somehow the congregation/parish/denomination vs. the building (currently or formerly a "church") distinction be recognized and handled.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vegaswikian. A "church" may be a broad grouping of believers (e.g. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)), a local congregation, or a building which may not be currently used for religious purposes. Much better to separate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the narrow focus is correct. We will have to look at the subcategories to make sure all the contents still fit, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "church" is ambiguous, and can refer to a congregation, a building, a denomination, or all Christian believers. The next nom below this one is for exactly the reverse change, and that should be made. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or Reconsider both -- This convention is correct, or I can get behind *adding* Category:Church buildings in the United States by state but not renaming Churches (as I've made arguements against below). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose overly ambiguous naming, resulting in a grabbag of contents. Church organizations should be entered into a separate category from church buildings. 70.24.245.198 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Of course "Churches in ..." category may belong to "Building in ..." category. So we can have top level "Buildings" in lower level "Church", "City Hall", "School" etc. --Vladek Komorek (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - buildings, congregations, etc are ambiguous in the real world. We can't tease them out to suit an arbitrary classification scheme. Ephebi (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some examples of articles that are about more than a building, and thus are not appropriately classified by making this a "buildings" category (including some that I expanded while investigating the categorization situation):
The recent renaming and the current renaming proposal below appear to be aimed at creating a "church buildings" category hierarchy for the U.S. by repurposing the existing "churches" hierarchy as a hierarchy for "church buildings.' Wouldn't it make more sense to create new high-level categories for church buildings, and start out populating them with existing categories for subtopics of church buildings (such as Category:19th-century United Church of Christ church buildings, Category:Stone churches in the United States, Category:Wooden churches in the United States, and Category:Former church buildings in the United States), instead of this wholesale repurposing of the entire existing "churches by location" hierarchy? --Orlady (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above: As I have stated, I believe that the existing "Churches by location" categories should be left alone while a hierarchy of "Church buildings" categories is created. Both the "churches" tree and "church buildings" tree are incompletely developed right now, but I believe that it makes sense to work on developing these two trees in parallel.
As I see it, "Churches in the United States" should be a container category that holds "Church buildings in the United States", "Churches by state in the United States", "Megachurches in the United States‎", and "Lutheran churches in the United States‎ ", "Presbyterian churches in the United States‎", and similar denomination-specific categories.
"Church buildings in the United States" could be created right now as a container for "Former church buildings in the United States", Category:Stone churches in the United States, Category:Wooden churches in the United States, etc. Additionally, because the vast majority of "church buildings" articles are currently stubs (akin to Big Spring Union Church) and are categorized in at least one church category, one buildings category, and one stub category, some sort of bot-like process should be used to create categories like "Church building stubs in Tennessee", which would consist of all pages that are in a churches by location category (in this example, either "Churches in Tennessee" or a subcat like "Churches in Memphis, Tennessee" or "Baptist churches in Tennessee") AND a buildings category (such as "Buildings and structures in Claiborne County, Tennessee" or "20th century religious buildings") AND at least one stub category (such as Category:Tennessee Registered Historic Place stubs or Category:Tennessee building and structure stubs‎). The "Church building stubs" categories created in this fashion could then be slotted into the appropriate place(s) in the "Church buildings by state" tree. I believe that the combination of (1) reasonable well-developed "church buildings" categories that currently exist and (2) the proposed "Church building stubs by state" categories would capture almost all of the articles that need to be placed in the "Church buildings by state" tree without trashing the comprehensive "churches by state" structure that exists now.
Meanwhile, the "Churches by state in the United States" category needs to be a container for both state-specific categories like Category:Churches in Alabama and denomination-by-state categories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (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.

Ambiguous categories to match the top levels of the tree[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Louisiana to Category:Church buildings in Louisiana
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Utah to Category:Church buildings in Utah
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Pennsylvania to Category:Church buildings in Pennsylvania
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Rhode Island to Category:Church buildings in Rhode Island
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Tennessee to Category:Church buildings in Tennessee
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Texas to Category:Church buildings in Texas
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent category is clearly for buildings. Numerous previous CfR has clearly established this name is ambiguous and the proposed name is the preferred unambiguous name. One editor is objecting to these at speedy, so I guess that we need yet another full discussion. Feel free to close at some point as a speedy C2C if appropriate. If any contents are miscategoried here, that would be further evidence that the name is ambiguous and these renames are needed. I find it hard to believe that with subcategories like Category:Carpenter Gothic churches in Louisiana and Category:Mennonite church buildings in Pennsylvania the fact that these are for buildings is in question. Many of these categories have the following introduction with the appropriate state: Specifically contains church buildings and structures found in Rhode Island. For a category containing general religion in Rhode Island such as; religions, denominations, and religious leaders see Religion in Rhode Island. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
additional categories and Speedy discussion
  • Comment. Why do we prefer "church building" over "church"? What %age of these articles are not churches?--Bermicourt (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because church is ambiguous in that it has several meanings as pointed out above. So while most editors accept the fact that these are generally buildings, adding buildings removes any question as to the purpose of the category. As you can see from this discussion, despite the fact that some of these categories clearly state that they are for buildings and structures only, some editors believe that they really cover other things. So usage and this discussion demonstrate that the category names really need to be completely unambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that "church" could be used for the building, as per WP:COMMONNAME, and other meanings could be dabbed. "Church building" seems rather ponderous and tautologous to me. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to see this proceed, and purge those articles that do not match the intended content. The category names are indeed ambiguous, and the contents seem narrowly focused on buildings in most cases. But since there's a well reasoned objection, I think we should move the discussion tothis full-CfD debate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now until there is a cogent statement of the criteria for inclusion for such categories that can be discussed. Clearly we should not be confused as to whether we are going to include only places of communal worship or alsomanses, rectories, church halls, monasterys, seminaries, or even parochial schoolbuildings. If not, into what category would these be grouped? "Church-related buildings by function", perhaps?LeadSongDog come howl! 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I didn't recognize that this CfR was about churches vs. church buildings until after I added my CfR to rename the parent category. While Vegaswikian finds it hard to believe that Category:Mennonite church buildings in Pennsylvania does not belong in a category for "church buildings," I find it unacceptable to suggest that the numerous articles about local church organizations that are included in these categories, such as Monteagle Sunday School Assembly, Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ, St. Ladislaus Church (South Norwalk, Connecticut), United Congregational Church (Newport, Rhode Island), and First Baptist Church in America are in fact strictly about church buildings. If there is a desire for a set of "church buildings by state" categories, please create them as a separate set of categories; do not repurpose the "churches" categories. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That still does not address the fact that churches in a category name is ambiguous. Even your oppose makes that point. If you think that a split is better, then feel free to propose that. But these existing category names need to be changed. Also arguments that these should not be renamed, that ignore the fact that these are in building trees, seem to me to be extremely weak. While an individual building and congregation can be in one article and those two facts represented by categories on that article, the same can not be said for the higher level categories! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are in building trees because Wikipedia has an abundance of contributors who are fascinated with documenting the details of old buildings in the United States, have difficulty imagining that there could be anything notable about a local church beyond its building, and who have described many local church categories as being about buildings because they assume (without actually looking) that all "church" articles are in fact articles about church buildings. --Orlady (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editors create articles for many reasons. Given that I have looked at maybe 10,000 or so of these in the last year or so, I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of these articles are solely about the building. So much so in fact that I would estimate that maybe at least 30% of these articles are so sketchy that there is no indication of the denomination that used the building. Even looking on the internet that information is hard or impossible to find. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you want to define the category structure to fit the myriad near-content-free stubs that are based solely on listings in the NRHP database (when they don't identify things like denomination, it's because the article creators had no clue), and make those articles that have actual substantive content become misfits? --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is a bad assumption. While many of these may be NRHP stubs, there are many others that are not in the US. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Given the rather inaccurate nature of the NRHP database, I support Orlady on this. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom, to eliminate some last vestiges of a long-standing ambiguity which causes no end of confusion and miscategorisation. Note that after renaming, some articles may need to be removed from the category; will the nominator undertake to do any necessary recategorisation after renaming? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The ambiguity frequently causes problems. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – clearly the status quo has produced a jumble of buildings and non-buildings in the same category. The non-buildings need to be removed to a new tree. (I can't work out what Monteagle Sunday School Assembly is. Does it have gps coordinates?) Oculi (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monteagle Sunday School Assembly is a Chautauqua assembly that apparently is operated as a church organization. Its physical facilities are probably best understood as a "campus" (including multiple buildings and some open space); they are sometimes described as a "village". It's in the village of Monteagle, Tennessee; I think that historically it encompassed most of the village. --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and purge. The narrow focus is better. The category contents are nearly all buildings, but we'll need to check the contents to see if any are miscategorized.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, here are some reasons why it doesn't fit.
  1. The records of any Parish are official legal documents (i.e. Birth Certificates) and are never housed in the Church. Ergo, the Rectory is also notable as a hall of records, just as any Town Hall or Library (depending on the location) is.
  2. Some parishes such as Sts. Cyril and Methodius Church (Bridgeport, Connecticut) are also the home for documents which make up the records of national organizations and are notable per wp:NONPROFIT.
  3. Still others such as Holy Name of Jesus Church (Stratford, Connecticut) were "ground zero" in the infamous Catholic sex abuse cases, which inherently makes it a Parish issue and is considerably more notable than the building not one of the actual building.
  4. Among others, St. Theresa Church (Trumbull, Connecticut)'s has a Blue Ribbon School, which also adds to the notability of other non-church buildings on a Parish property and is notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines.
  5. There are five Ecclesiastical Provinces in Connecticut. This would mean that an article like Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford or Cathedral of St. Joseph (Hartford, Connecticut) would have it's category changed to reflect a building, as opposed to the seminaries, the fact that it's the seat & office of a Bishop, or the actual congregation's history. That's like changing the category for the Yale Library from Libraries in New Haven County, Connecticut to Buildings in New Haven County, Connecticut. Sure, the building exists, but what about it's USE?

I'm not oppposed to a Buildings category per se, but I am wholly opposed to removing the Churches category as the Church building is *not* the only notable thing about a Parish. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark, you confuse the concepts of notability with that of importance, and as a result your first three points are largely irrelevant to an assessment of notability. In any case, notability is a property of an article, and is largely irrelevant to categorisation. A non-notable topic should not have an article, so a categorisation discussion starts from the assumption that an article is about a notable topic.
    Your final point gets nearer the nub of the issue, but still misses the problem that "church" is an ambiguous word which causes problems in categorisation, and also fails to adequately examine the article in question. The article Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford is already adequately categorised in Category:Ukrainian Catholic Metropolia of Philadelphia, Category:Ukrainian diaspora in the United States, Category:Ukrainian Greek Catholic eparchies, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States, Category:Stamford, Connecticut, and Category:Religious organizations established in 1983. It probably should also be categorised as a seminary, because it covers St. Basil College Seminary, but it is not a church building, nor is it a parish/congregation, and nor is it a nationwide church, so it doesn't belong in a category of churches. Regardless of whether Category:Churches in Fairfield County, Connecticut is renamed, this article should not be in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi BrownhairedGirl, I have to disagree on points #1 &2 unless you want to delete the Harvard Film Archive, the University of California Libraries or pretty much any other record storing location. I disagree on point #3 as you're dismissing events that are the very definition of notability, which occurred inside of a parish property -- and not always the Church building itself.
    As you said, " non-notable topic should not have an article, so a categorisation discussion starts from the assumption that an article is about a notable topic." -- exactly so. So my quesiton is why on Earth would you believe that the US Capitol is notable, but that the Senators and Congressmen are not? Or, that the national mall isn't?
    Thanks, but "Church" is not ambiguous to those that are in it: the church is the building, the clergy, and the people. That is why I don't mind the creation of ANOTHER category, but the renaming on the Church one is misguided.
    Please look at the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford article again, the St. Volodymyr Cathedral is mentioned into the infobox. It currently lacks an article, but is is "their compound", as is the seminary (which also lacks its own article) and the high school. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, those first two paras have nothing at all to do with this discussion. You still don't seem willing to accept that this is a discussion about categorising the content of existing articles, not about whether they should exist or be split.
    Secondly, a passing mention of the existence of a cathedral does not mean that the article is about a cathedral or should be categorised as such. If the article included some substantive coverage of the cathedral, then the article (or a redirect to it from the name of the cathedral) should be categorised as a cathedral. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, you don't seem to get that all of my points about splitting articles are just points to show that the articles in question are NOT about the buildings alone and therefore it is inherently wrong to do a category rename instead of a category add. At no point am I actually saying "split these articles up", I'm saying "these articles are about MORE than just a building". YES! Exactly! "a passing mention of the existence of a cathedral does not mean that the article is about a cathedral or should be categorised as such" -- which is what this proposal does! "Church" is not any more ambiguous than "town" is (or many other locations): it is the buildings, the grounds, and the PEOPLE. As for the first two points, I have no idea how you can possibly just dismiss them without consideration. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, once again please WP:AGF, and do not suggest that I dismissed your points without consideration. I did indeed consider them carefully, and dismissed them because they are nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
    You seem to think that you are the only person who has noticed that the renaming will narrow the scope of the categories, but that has been explicitly acknowledged by others, and if the rename proceeds then some articles will need to be removed. There is nothing particularly unusual about that; it is quite common a CFD for a category's scope to be adjusted.
    The renaming causes no problem for the categorisation of Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford, because it should not be in either a "Churches in Foo" category or a "Church buildings in Foo" category. (It's an article about a diocese, not about a church). To prevent it causing you any further distress, I will fix that right now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As to your 4th item, there are different trees for the schools since schools are not churches even if they may be associated with a specific parish. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Vegaswikian, Great idea! Let's also eradicate the Las Vegas Strip article, all we need are the casinos. Oh, wait, that makes no sense either, becuase the Casinos have pieces too! We'd have to make Mandalay Bay be just about the casino. Then make an article for Mandalay Bay (restaurants), Mandalay Bay (hotel), Mandalay Bay (pool area)... oh, wait, THOSE have pieces too! Now we need Mandalay Bay (wave pool) and Mandalay Bay (European bathing too! I hope you see what I'm getting at: your solution it to basically balkanize to the point of exclusivity. IMO, that doesn't work... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Markvs88, please stop being silly. This is not a discussion about deleting articles, nor about splitting them. If an article covers multiple topics, it can be included in multiple categories, and does not need to be split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, Vegaswikian is stating that only the actual church building is important to the articles, my position is contrary to his in that it is not necessarily the only notable componant of a typical church article. As I've said many times now: go ahead and ADD a Church Building category, I have no problem with that. But to rename the Church category is... silly. :-) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else. I have not made any assertion like that. I have simply been pointing out that the current category name is ambiguous. You have not offered anything that addresses that problem. Splitting has always been an option, so do you support that? If so your objection goes away and everyone will endorse a rename and a split. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? You didn't say "The main structure that these are in are for the buildings which is generally all that is notable" on my talk, and "Parent category is clearly for buildings" here? Disingenuous, given that you've been given over a half a dozen examples of articles that are Church articles and NOT about the buildings in the Chuch categories. As I also point out to Peterkingiron below, if you want to say that "Church" is ambiguous, so is "town" and many other location words. Of *course* I don't support splitting, didn't you read the Mandalay Bay example a few lines above? ...Are you kidding? I have said no less that 4 times "ADD the building category but don't rename the Church one". No one has replied. Orlady has said the same above, to add and not repurpose. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- "church" is ambiguous, and can refer to a congregation, a building, a denomination, or all Christian believers. However, most articles that are (or should be) in the categories are about buildings and the activities which the congregation meeting there undertake. I have no idea what "Mandalay Bay" has to do about this; and so ignore those comments. I recall a batch of articles on churches being renamed to "congregations" when most of the articles were about buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peterkingiron, for your support to rename Category:Malvern, Worcestershire to Category:Buildings in Worcestershire, as a "town" is ambiguous. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Last year was the discussion to combine parishes with churches. Some of the names changed to the name of the parish church. Now some are trying to change it all to the buildings. I think that you must first restore the Roman Catholic parish names from the parish church.
    As a reminder. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism/Archive 2011#Parishes and churches notability.--Vladek Komorek (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was of little relevance to this one, because it is about how to structure articles, not about how they should be categorised. If the article covers a building, then it can be categorised as a church building; if it covers a parish, then it can be categorised as such; and if it covers both then it can be categorised as both. What's the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BrownHairedGirl, we keep telling you what the problem is, you keep on dismissing it as "impertinent". Vladek is talking about the difference between church and parish church, which he feels is being ignored. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have moved the Speedy discussion to the top of this one. That discussion was becoming quite lengthy, and all of the comments seemed germane to this discussion. So I've consolidated them, in hopes that the original commenters' concerns can be heard here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An example of how it is, and how this should be[edit]

If such a renaming goes through we'd also have to rename Category:Synagogues in Connecticut to Synagogue Buildings in Connecticut, and Category:Mosques in Connecticut to Category:Mosque Buildings in Connecticut. In every state. We would logically also have to also change Category:Libraries, Category:Seats of local government, Category:Fire stations in the United States, Category:Police stations in the United States etc, plus subs, since those would also be equally "vague". In every state. The list is close to endless, as every type of building would have to be "fixed". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Maybe I will add more simple example. Article City Hall in XYZ. Category should be: City Hall building by state, or City Hall by state?--Władysław Komorek (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2012 (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:Button-cell battery manufacturers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Battery manufacturers to catch anything missed, then delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Button-cell battery manufacturers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete. Not likely to be further populated and is an unnecessary level of categorisation (IMHO!!). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:51, 22 January 2012 (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 Civil War military engagements in Adams County, Pennsylvania[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) 22:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American Civil War military engagements in Adams County, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be a case of overcategorization, particularly of inversection by location and narrow intersection. These battles are already included in the battles of the Gettysburg Campaign and Pennsylvania in the ACW categories. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2012 (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:Jerash Private University[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. Feel free to renominate to discuss this nomination or any of the other alternatives suggested. - jc37 05:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jerash Private University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete Eponymous category for private university - containing only itself. Do not see other possibilities for inclusion in category Skier Dude (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't need a special category for a single category. (While you're at it, might as well as delete Category:Jerash Private University faculty as well.) Mad Man American (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Delete & Upmerge I'd rather delete Category:Jerash Private University faculty, upmerge that one article into this cat and leave it with 2 articles and (presumably) room to grow. This is a weak keep though based on the article count.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are tons of categories like this for universities that contain only an article about the university and a subcategory for either faculty or alumni: see Category:Categories named after universities and colleges. I would oppose question deleting just this one in isolation of all the other ones similarly populated lightly. Neutral for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the faculty subcat is fine, part of Category:Faculty by university or college in Jordan (which is itself part of a larger global tree, not necessarily consistently named). An alumni subcat would also be fine (if any can be found). If we draw a parallel with eponymous musician categories (regularly tested at cfd, unlike eponymous university cats), I can't think of any that have ever been kept with such minimal contents. Oculi (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The Faculty/Alumni trees are quite established as is Category:Universities in Jordan that ties into a global college tree. I was assuming that, if there are not enough articles to justify sub-cats, we go with the higher level cat but maybe not. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- With a univeristy in an arabic speaking country, it is hardly surprising that we should have few articles. As the university website is in arabic, I cannot understand it, and so have no idea how substantial an institution it is. I see little harm in it remaining and us waiting to see what more we get. Alternatively upmerge the faculty category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (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:Public domain films in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Public domain films in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Same reasons outlined in the other recent CFD Category:Public domain films. There was no consensus in that CFD to create a new category with this name or scope, it has all the same problems. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't this category different from "Category:Public domain films"? If not, then how is it similar? --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See comments by myself, Oculi and anon user in the previous CFD. In short, don't believe PD films made after 1923 should be categorized at all due to difficulties in defining a film as being PD and misuse of categories without sources. These films should be recognized as PD only carefully through the mechanisms that allow sourcing, that is directly in articles or list-of articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (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:Taluks of Thanjavur district[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) 22:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Taluks of Thanjavur district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "district" should be in caps as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions for proper nouns. Eg. New York County. The articles in this category have already been moved to Category:Taluks of Thanjavur District.- RaviMy Tea Kadai 01:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What do you propose should be done with this categ, and why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The category is empty; I would suggest deleting it if articles aren't placed in it soon. DCItalk 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think User:Ravichandar84 wants it to be replaced with Category:Taluks of Thanjavur District, a newer category and has moved the content articles of this category to new category (Ex: link). I am not against deletion but then all the categories in Category:Taluks of Tamil Nadu have to be moved for capitalisation of the letter d. Thanks. WorLD8115 (TalK) 14:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This appears to be a case of an inexperienced user having found a category mispelt and created a correctly spelt replacement and edited all the articles to the new form, thus emptying the category out of process. AS far as I can understand it, a taluk is something like an English parish. In England many places have an article categorised as on a parish, but in fact the article is about the village at its core. These will be categorised by district. I see no objection to a similar category tree for Indian taluks. I would oppose merging them inot a state-wide category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I'm sorry. I forgot to specify my rationale.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 03:14, 24 January 2012 (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/2012_January_22&oldid=1148859108"