Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13

[edit]

Category:Catholic Apostolic Churches

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other denominational categories. Catholic Apostolic Church is the name of a movement. These are denominations within the movement. JFH (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2013 (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:Solo instrumental jazz 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: merge Category:Solo instrumental jazz albums, Category:Solo guitar jazz albums, and Category:Solo piano jazz albums to Category:Jazz albums and Category:Instrumental albums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Solo instrumental jazz is not a genre. Alternate proposal: Rename Category:Instrumental jazz albums to diffuse both Category:Jazz albums and Category:Instrumental albums. Subcategories: Category:Solo guitar jazz albums and Category:Solo piano jazz albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:29, 13 June 2013 (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:Dams in India by river (sub cats)

[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:Dams on the XXXX River format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dams across Mahanadi River‎
Category:Dams across Tapti River‎
Category:Dams on Godavari River‎
Category:Dams on Krishna River‎
Category:Dams on Kaveri River
Category:Dams on Narmada River
Category:Dams on Yamuna River
Nominator's rationale: Consistency for a nascent category that will expand soon. Similar to Category:Crossings of the Mississippi River.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have noticed a tendency for river related things to have them grouped in some kind of order which is not alphabetic, like categories. Given that and the interaction of dams between each other would a template be a better way to group these? Or even a list that shows the distance up river and the volume of water that each dam can retain? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been sorting the dams alphabetically within the categories. Most articles on rivers include the dams that are on them whether in prose or in list. Some major rivers have lists. Most countries have a page which lists each dam. Some rivers such as the Missouri River have nav templates. It depends from one river article to the next whether the dams and their volumes are listed. Researching and navigating can be a little tricky as rivers go from one state or province to another. I think all the categories, lists and articles all compliment one another.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Supprt renaming all to Category:Dams on the xxx River with "the". Shyamsunder (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian denominations and unions by century established

[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 at 2013 July 5. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm assuming "union" means denominational union (merge of several denominations into one). Denominational unions are denominations. JFH (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Union" is a term for movements, -isms, denominational families, and any groups of locals church and oppose being labled a denomination because of the idea that any denomination is bad. Union is also an aid to avoiding arguments over whether something is or is not an denomination. Some of the many examples: *Novatianism *Gothic Christianity *Reformed Baptists *Sovereign Grace Ministries. -tahc chat 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other six categorization schemes under Category:Christian denominations aren't doing it this way. Including movements and denominational families in the same categorization scheme as actual organizations is problematic. Denominations have organizational structures and belong in Category:Christian organizations; movements and denominational families do not have structures and belong in Category:Christian movements. Whether or not a denomination wants to be called a denomination, Category:Christian denominations has a description to allow us to categorize them. All the examples you gave are movements except SGM, which is currently in Category:Apostolic networks, which has been in Category:Christian denominations since 2008 at the latest. It's possible that there is a better term than "denomination," but I've never heard any of one of these groups called a "union." --JFH (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JFH wants to denominational families and denominations (yes the two are different, but there is no good way of keeping denominational families out of denomination Categories). People will assume that "Baptist" is a denomination until you explain to them one at a time.)
Beeswaxcandle, on the other hand, wants to fold them all into [Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment] (to me, Category:Religious organizations established in 1983 have almost nothing in common with each other. It is just a way to keep the size of the category done.)
Keeping it as is seems good to me, but there could well be a better name than what we have now. tahc chat
It's not my idea to separate denominations and denominational families; see the description at Category:Christian denominations, and notice that this is the only one of the many categorization schemes there where we are combining these. I don't think it's that hard to understand that the American Baptist Churches USA is a different thing than the Baptists. Not only are we talking about different things, but it's very difficult to say when a movement or a denominational family was established. It doesn't appear that we are categorizing any other type of movement by century. As for the separate issue Beeswaxcandle brings up, I don't really have a view. It doesn't seem like a problem to have a separate denominations by century scheme within Christian organizations by century. --JFH (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete both along with the rest of this tree. It attempts to duplicates the tree Category:Religious organizations by year of establishment, which is far more comprehensive. I found the second tree by looking for Uniting Church in Australia within the first tree (it's not there). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer deletion, or actually merging, to doing nothing. Category:Christian organizations by century seems like a better fit, unless you want to delete that too. Do you think Category:Christian movements by century should be created to split the movements to? --JFH (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protestantism discusses them without saying they are not Protestants, and Unitarianism discusses their historical roots in Protestantism as well as their divergence from "several conventional Protestant doctrines," but never says they aren't Protestants. --JFH (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian denominational unions by predecessor churches

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. No consensus on the listify and delete. If that is a good option, listify and then nominate for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category sounds like the subcats would be based on the predecessors and contain the successors, rather than the other way around. JFH (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete'. This is a list concept rather than a category concept. The 4 subcategories contain lists of churches that were founded at some point and eventually ended up merging to become a denominational union. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2013 (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:Films starring actors portraying characters with the same first name

[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) 19:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial, arguably not a defining characteristic of a film. Robofish (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apparently her name was Lucille Esmeralda McGillacudy Ricardo, so I guess "I Love Lucy" would fit, but I still think it is trivial, even for that show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2013 (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:Widowhood in television

[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) 19:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Seriously? The category seems designed to capture any TV show that includes a widow. There is no indication that the inclusion of a widowed character generally defines works of fiction. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2013 (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:Retired Angolan basketball players

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sorting by trivial characteristic (status of playing career). TM 03:22, 13 June 2013 (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:Reissue 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: procedural close: as suggested below, it seems fair to have some reasonable gap between the previous discussion and a new discussion, even if the previous discussion was closed as "no consensus". Essentially, so far we're just re-hashing the same arguments made there. I suggest a minimum of 8 weeks, but that's just a guideline and shouldn't be regarded as any sort of "red line". That should be long enough for those who support the category to define it, populate it, develop it and maintain it. It should also be long enough to start and resolve discussions on some of the content articles (some have suggested articles about reissue albums should be merged to the articles about the albums). But as noted, if limited to articles such as Bad 25, which are explicitly articles about reissued albums, the category has a stronger argument for being defining for the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Last nomination was no consensus. Many albums are reissued: this is not a defining feature of (e.g.) Dark Side of the Moon; it's trivial. Besides, what is reissue these days? When something becomes available on iTunes is it "reissued"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not defining to the album. I own various anniversary re-issues of Dark Side of the Moon and The White Album, to name but two, but those albums are not defined by being reissued x-amount of years/times after it was released. Defining attributes should be in the lead of the article. No-one would write an article stating "Dark Side of the Moon is an album by Pink Floyd that has been re-issued several times..." for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Defining is such an ambiguous term, all it does is create endless discussions.
  2. The wp:cfd process is stacked against creators since there is no way to limit recurrent nominations of failed deletions, while successful deletions cannot be re-nominated for discussion.XOttawahitech (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:DEFINING clearly states "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" so the fact an album has been reissued would probably not be in the lead, hence it's not defining, and neither is the category. That's pretty straight forward to me. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading through the "Keeps" for the last CfD, I did not see one reason put forward to persuade me there is any notability, value or useful property associated with this category. As already stated, nearly every album is reissued if it was successful - put it another way, any album significant to have a WP article, has been, or will be reissued! --Richhoncho (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First: disruptive nomination, after only so few days. Second, not all albums are reissued, and as such it is a quite noteworthy feature. Lugnuts says "No-one would write an article stating "Dark Side of the Moon is an album by Pink Floyd that has been re-issued several times..." for example. " - well, I would. Third and most important: guys, we're all doing it wrong. It's not about "every album that has been reissued", it is about albums that are reissues of other albums and notable per se. See Good_Girl_Gone_Bad:_Reloaded for example,where the reissue is notable per se, it has coverage and reviewes etc. separately from the original one and where being a reissue is a clearly defining feature. Pruning the category may be fine, but deleting it altogether is a problem for albums like the one linked above. --Cyclopiatalk 09:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cyclopia, at last a worthy reason for a keep support. However, you make it plain that a "reissue" that I, and probably others are thinking of, is not what you consider should be in the category, so I cannot change my !vote at this stage.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where would you put Good_Girl_Gone_Bad:_Reloaded, then? I picked it up from that category, and there are more. You're basically arguing that the category is polluted by entries which should not be there, which is not really a good reason to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 15:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded is already categorized. Your question should be does it need another category? My answer is not one that can be misconstrued as meaning something else. My reading is that GGGB:Reloaded is not a "straight reissue." If you are are arguing it is then it should be merged with the main article UNLESS WP:SIZE is relevant. I thought I had made myself clear before, "reissued" does not signify any importance, if the category title was more defining and descriptive, I might be able to support - while a category scheme name that is going to include for an umpteenth time (yawn!), the same old 95% plus albums is a complete waste of time and space and provides nothing encyclopedic. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Reissue albums", not "Reissued albums" - small difference, big change. It's not about albums which have been reissued, it's about albums which are notable reissues. Given that the album is defined in the lede as a "reissue" I'd say the category is needed. --Cyclopiatalk 16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, the underlying problem is you don't think I get the difference, then many, many other readers of WP won't get the subtle difference either- which will spoil your idea and it won't work as a category! --Richhoncho (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it has to be renamed, not deleted, if clarity is the problem. Category:Reissues of albums perhaps would be enough? It clarifies it is about the reissues themeselves, not about "having been reissued sometimes". --Cyclopiatalk 22:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the category to be meaningful and defining it would have to be renamed, but is there a suitable category name? I don't think so. Would WP be any the less without the category? No. This is just another music category which doesn't say what it means, but is supposed to "imply" what it means. Let it go in peace. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Imply"? It's crystal clear what it means: it means albums that are reissues. And yes, it would be less without the category: we wouldn't have a way to put together notable reissues. This is beginning to strain my assumptions of good faith. You have acknowledged what is the meaning of the category, you have acknowledged that it's not what you thought it was. --Cyclopiatalk 14:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGF? There's no lack of good faith on my part, you are merely getting frustrated because I don't agree with you. You need to sit down for a few minutes and think about the category you have created and what it actually means - not what you think it should mean. The problem is, which I cannot and will not be able to overcome is that a "reissue" is an album which is re-marketed at a later date. You want to use the word "re-issue" to mean repackaged with different track listing and additional artwork, even including a CD booklet etc etc. Reissue/d isn't a solution. Neither you nor I can change the meaning of a word because it suits us. I think we both agree that there shouldn't be a category for albums are merely reissued. I can live with a category for albums that are re-imagined and re-issued. This ain't it! Might as well create Catgeory:Fish and put trees in it because they are living things too! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with a category for albums that are re-imagined and re-issued. This ain't it! - Yes, this is, instead. That's what the category contains, and that's what the category name says. Again, do you think it is ambiguous? Do we want to change the name of the cat? Okay, let's change it, but that's the concept we're talking about. I am not frustrated by mere disagreement, but by the fact that you seem to agree and disagree at the same time with what I am saying. --Cyclopiatalk 19:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Lugnuts says "No-one would write an article stating "Dark Side of the Moon is an album by Pink Floyd that has been re-issued several times..." for example. " - well, I would." Give that a try on the actual article. See how long it is before it's reverted. I'm betting on seconds. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't dispute the argument put forth in this nomination, following the previous outcome of no consensus and my concern that many more noteworthy albums have been reissued than just the ones that have their own article, I further populated this category with album articles that have well-sourced coverage of a reissue and for some even its own section on the reissues. I'll abstain from !voting, but to me this should be an all or nothing category, not just for a certain type of reissue. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only being used to categorize articles that are themselves about re-issue albums (when we have such an album), then this cat could make sense. If you check the ledes of the albums Cyclopia lists above, they all state "X is a reissue of Y" in the lede, so it's clearly defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • purged I purged this category of all articles that *aren't* about reissue albums. What remains are all of the re-issue albums I could find, but I'm sure there are others. Feel free to add more, but don't add albums like The Wall that have been reissued, but where the article itself is not about a re-issue of the wall.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reissue such as the 30th anniversary edition of All Things Must Pass was well covered in reliable sources, reviewed in multiple outlets, and charted. It would easily pass notability requirements for a standalone article, but the info is sufficient enough that a split from the original article isn't necessary. To me, a redirect for All Things Must Pass (30th Anniversary Edition) should be able to be created pointing to All Things Must Pass#2001. If being a reissue isn't defining to the original album itself, the redirect for the 2001 release can be categorized as a reissue album. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Airproofing, have you read the above? We're talking of reissues that are notable in themselves. Please have a look at the articles of the albums linked above and at the content of the category. It's not "Reissued albums", it's "Reissue albums". --Cyclopiatalk 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've changed my !vote to keep. WP:DEFINING states that reliable sources regularly describe the thing as X, and this information might be present in the lede. If you look at the ledes of *all* of the albums in this category, the lede starts "X is a reissue album by singer Y, of his older record Z" - in other words, these albums are literally DEFINED by being reissues of other albums. I'd be happy for suggestions for a better name, but this is clearly a defining feature. Again, this should not be used for albums which were later reissued - this should only be used for albums which are themselves A reissue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2013 (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/2013_June_13&oldid=1136102750"