Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 20

[edit]

Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members

[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 to delete all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up on discussion here. A fair objection in this discussion was that all child categories should be part of the discussion, not just a random selection of four. So here is the nomination for all child categories. The rationale for deleting is that the nominated categories aren't a defining characteristic for the members in every category, per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD. Please note that this nomination definitely does not include a proposal to delete the parent category Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, tagging is still in process. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It's done now. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the case with Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (which was the initial nomination). StAnselm (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some examples of people for whom - in your opinion - WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD wouldn't apply? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the parent. As noted by Folks at 137, many of these categories cover decorations given for other purposes as well, and yet presumably they don't all. This makes the parent category useless for navigation: we can't tell what's what. I would support deleting any child categories that can be shown to be awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, because I agree with the nomination statement. To make this parent category useful, we'd have to remove everything that's not awarded only to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and the nomination statement would then be correct — but this kind of action would leave the parent category empty and thus cause its deletion, too. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are almost without exception not defining for the recipients and also run afoul of the other overcategorization guidelines, such as WP:OCAWARD. This is the case whether or not the recipient is limited to heads of state and their family members. For these reasons I think that in general that these are an ill-conceived use of the category system. These are the kinds of things that are certainly notable, and should be included in articles about the awards, but they are not defining for recipients. (I think that if deletion is a possibility, it is also important that the categories be listed here as part of the nomination, perhaps in a collapsible table.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Sorry - didn't realize you didn't have AWB access when you posted asked how to get the list. Here's the list, per Good Ol’factory's request. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The categories may need work to make navigating them easier. Difficulty in navigation is not a reason for deleting them. I've just been looking at the entries in the higher categories to try to figure out who is in them and why they are. Then, when I look at who is in the lesser categories, I wonder why they are not in the higher categories. (I'm referring specifically to the Finnish Orders here). The point is that it's all useful, valuable information that editors have taken a long time to compile. And now some busy body wants to come along and sweep it all away. There's too much wanton vandalism on Wikipedia posing as tidying up and deleting not-noteworthy articles. This is yet just another example.124.185.54.154 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  1. Category:Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John
  2. Category:Bands of the Order of the Aztec Eagle
  3. Category:Chief Commanders of the Philippine Legion of Honor
  4. Category:Civil First Classes of the Order of Oman
  5. Category:Collars of the Order of Abdulaziz al Saud
  6. Category:Collars of the Order of Civil Merit
  7. Category:Collars of the Order of Isabella the Catholic
  8. Category:Collars of the Order of Merit (Chile)
  9. Category:Collars of the Order of Mubarak the Great
  10. Category:Collars of the Order of the Aztec Eagle
  11. Category:Collars of the Order of the Chrysanthemum
  12. Category:Collars of the Order of the Liberator General San Martin
  13. Category:Collars of the Order of the Republic (Egypt)
  14. Category:Collars of the Order of the White Lion
  15. Category:Commander's Crosses with Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary (military)
  16. Category:Commanders Grand Cross of the Order of the Polar Star
  17. Category:Commanders Grand Cross of the Order of the White Rose of Finland
  18. Category:Commanders Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of the White Rose of Finland
  19. Category:Commanders of the Order of Leopold (Belgium)
  20. Category:Companions of the Star of Melanesia
  21. Category:Cordons of the Order of Stara Planina
  22. Category:Dames Grand Cross of the Order of Chula Chom Klao
  23. Category:Dames Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic
  24. Category:Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
  25. Category:Dames of the Order of Saint Isabel
  26. Category:Dames of the Order of the Rajamitrabhorn
  27. Category:Dames of the Order of the Royal House of Chakri
  28. Category:Dato Laila Utamas of the Royal Family Order of Brunei
  29. Category:Dato Seri Utamas of the Royal Family Order of Brunei
  30. Category:Distinguished First Classes of the Order of Abdulaziz al Saud
  31. Category:Extra Knights Companion of the Garter
  32. Category:Extra Ladies of the Order of the Garter
  33. Category:Extraordinary Grades of the Order of Merit (Lebanon)
  34. Category:Extraordinary Grand Crosses of the Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa
  35. Category:First Classes of the Family Order of Terengganu (Malaysia)
  36. Category:First Classes of the Royal Family Order of Johor (Malaysia)
  37. Category:First Classes of the Royal Family Order of Selangor (Malaysia)
  38. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of Lakandula
  39. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of Liberty
  40. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of Prince Henry
  41. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of Saint James of the Sword
  42. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of Sikatuna
  43. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of the Golden Heart
  44. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of the Southern Cross
  45. Category:Grand Collars of the Order of the Tower and Sword
  46. Category:Grand Commanders of the Order of the Niger
  47. Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu
  48. Category:Grand Cordons (Imperial Family) of the Order of the Precious Crown
  49. Category:Grand Cordons of the Honorary Order of the Yellow Star
  50. Category:Grand Cordons of the National Order of the Leopard
  51. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Independence (Jordan)
  52. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Independence (Tunisia)
  53. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Leopold (Belgium)
  54. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Merit (Cameroon)
  55. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Merit (Lebanon)
  56. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland
  57. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Mubarak the Great
  58. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Chrysanthemum
  59. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Liberator
  60. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Nile
  61. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Precious Crown
  62. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of the Star of Jordan
  63. Category:Grand Cordons of the Order of Valour
  64. Category:Grand Croix of the Ordre national du Mérite
  65. Category:Grand Cross of the Order of Civil Merit
  66. Category:Grand Cross of the Order of the Sun (Peru)
  67. Category:Grand Crosses with Diamonds of the Order of the Sun (Peru)
  68. Category:Grand Crosses of Royal Order of Sahametrei
  69. Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of Mali
  70. Category:Grand Crosses of the National Order of the Ivory Coast
  71. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Adolphe of Nassau
  72. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Aviz
  73. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Beneficence (Greece)
  74. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins
  75. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Charles III
  76. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Christ (Portugal)
  77. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Faithful Service
  78. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of George I
  79. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Good Hope
  80. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Honour (Greece)
  81. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Lakandula
  82. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of May
  83. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit (Chile)
  84. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit (Portugal)
  85. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
  86. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary (civil)
  87. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland
  88. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Prince Henry
  89. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Rio Branco
  90. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Saint James of the Sword
  91. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Saint-Charles
  92. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Saints Cyril and Methodius (1909-1944)
  93. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Tahiti Nui
  94. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Aztec Eagle
  95. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Condor of the Andes
  96. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Crown (Belgium)
  97. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Crown (Netherlands)
  98. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Golden Heart
  99. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Liberator General San Martin
  100. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas
  101. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Phoenix (Greece)
  102. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Quetzal
  103. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Redeemer
  104. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Southern Cross
  105. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Star of Romania
  106. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Tower and Sword
  107. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the White Double Cross
  108. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the White Lion
  109. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Vasco Núñez de Balboa
  110. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Vytautas the Great
  111. Category:Grand Crosses with Chain of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary (civil)
  112. Category:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of Charles III
  113. Category:Grand Crosses with Collar of the Order of the Falcon
  114. Category:Grand Crosses with Golden Chain of the Order of Vytautas the Great
  115. Category:Grand Officers of the Order of the Star of Jordan
  116. Category:Grand Officers of the Order of the White Double Cross
  117. Category:Grand Officiers of the Ordre national du Mérite
  118. Category:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients
  119. Category:Grand Order of Queen Jelena recipients
  120. Category:Grand Stars of the Order of Merit of the Principality of Liechtenstein
  121. Category:Honorary Companions of Honour with Collar of the National Order of Merit (Malta)
  122. Category:Honorary Dames Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
  123. Category:Honorary Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
  124. Category:Honorary Dames Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
  125. Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
  126. Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
  127. Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
  128. Category:Honorary Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
  129. Category:Honorary Knights of the Thistle
  130. Category:Honorary Members of Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika
  131. Category:Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre
  132. Category:Knights and Dames of the Collar of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre
  133. Category:Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Crown of Kelantan (Malaysia)
  134. Category:Knights Grand Commander of the Order of the Life of the Crown of Kelantan
  135. Category:Knights Grand Companion of the Order of the Gallant Prince Syed Putra Jamalullail (Malaysia)
  136. Category:Knights Grand Cordon of the Order of Chula Chom Klao
  137. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Chula Chom Klao
  138. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic
  139. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic
  140. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Orange-Nassau
  141. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Queen Salote Tupou III
  142. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus
  143. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of St. Olav
  144. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
  145. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown of Tonga
  146. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Falcon
  147. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion
  148. Category:Knights Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic
  149. Category:Knights Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of St. Olav
  150. Category:Knights of Malta
  151. Category:Knights of the Elephant
  152. Category:Knights of the Golden Fleece
  153. Category:Knights of the Order of Saint Michael
  154. Category:Knights of the Order of the Most Holy Annunciation
  155. Category:Knights of the Order of the Rajamitrabhorn
  156. Category:Knights of the Order of the Royal House of Chakri
  157. Category:Knights of the Order of the Star of Jordan
  158. Category:Order of Loyalty to the Royal House of Kedah
  159. Category:Sovereign Military Order of Malta
  160. Category:Members of the Order of Glory (Armenia)
  161. Category:Members of the Order of Honour (Armenia)
  162. Category:Members of the Order of Tri Shakti Patta, First Class
  163. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Pouono
  164. Category:Grand Crosses of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
  165. Category:Military First Classes of the Order of Oman
  166. Category:Officers of the Order of the Star of Jordan
  167. Category:Order of Loyalty to the Crown of Malaysia
  168. Category:Order of the Precious Crown members
  169. Category:Order of Umayyad
  170. Category:Recipients of Bintang Republik Indonesia Adipurna
  171. Category:Recipients of Order of the Royal House of Malaysia
  172. Category:Recipients of the Collar of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana
  173. Category:Recipients of the Collar of the Order of the White Star
  174. Category:Recipients of the Decoration for Services to the Republic of Austria
  175. Category:Recipients of the Order of al-Hussein bin Ali
  176. Category:Recipients of the Order of Al-Said
  177. Category:Recipients of the Order of Liberty (Ukraine)
  178. Category:Recipients of the Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero
  179. Category:Recipients of the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise
  180. Category:Recipients of the Order of Prince Yaroslav the Wise, 1st class
  181. Category:Recipients of the Order of Princess Olga
  182. Category:Recipients of the Order of Stara Planina, 1st class
  183. Category:Recipients of the Order of Stara Planina, 1st class with swords
  184. Category:Recipients of the Order of Sultan Qaboos, First Class
  185. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Condor of the Andes
  186. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 1st Class
  187. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Crown of the Realm
  188. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars, 2nd Class
  189. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars, 5th Class
  190. Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Eagle (Poland)
  191. Category:Recipients of the Order of the White Star, 1st Class
  192. Category:Recipients of the Order of Vytautas the Great
  193. Category:Recipients of the Order of Zayed
  194. Category:Recipients of the Royal Family Order of Kelantan (Malaysia)
  195. Category:Recipients of the Royal Family Order of Perak (Malaysia)
  196. Category:Recipients of the Star of the Solomon Islands
  197. Category:Royal Family Order of the Crown of Brunei
  198. Category:Second Classes of the Royal Family Order of Johor (Malaysia)
  199. Category:Second Classes of the Royal Family Order of Selangor (Malaysia)
  200. Category:Special Classes of the Order of Oman
  201. Category:Special Classes of the Order of the Renaissance of Oman
  202. Category:Supernumerary Knights of the Order of the Holy Spirit
  203. Category:Supreme Classes of the Order of the Virtues
  204. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars, 1st Class
  205. Category:Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars, 1st Class with Chain
No, there are lots in this category where it is mentioned in the lead. Now, I know these things are a load of old cobblers (look at Andrzej Ciechanowiecki so it's not just British cobblers) but people really are sometimes defined by such things. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually in the process of checking the use of categories relating to the various Orders of St John. Some biographies have been wrongly categorised, so it will be that the Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John is incomplete and could include more people for whom the award is "defining" (however defined). So please wait a bit before judgement. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Here is an entirely random sample from Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire:

  1. Beilby Alston, Grand Cross mentioned in separate Honours paragraph at end of article.
  2. Percy Bates, Grand Cross mentioned in combination with the fact for which he received the Grand Cross.
  3. Hugh Clifford, Grand Cross mentioned in separate Honours paragraph at end of article.
  4. Henry Dobbs, Grand Cross mentioned at end of body text.
  5. Alfred Emmott, 1st Baron Emmott, Grand Cross not mentioned in the text.
  6. Howard Frank, Grand Cross mentioned in body text just before his death.
  7. James Gildea, Grand Cross mentioned in last line of body text.
  8. Joshua Hassan, Grand Cross not mentioned in the text.
  9. Giles Fox-Strangways, 6th Earl of Ilchester, Grand Cross not mentioned in the text.
  10. Azam Jah, Grand Cross mentioned in separate Honours paragraph at end of article.
I mean, I would really not mind to make an exception for the Grand Cross, but it seems like there's no rationale to make an exception. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there is no rationale for an exception is that there is no rationale for inclusion. I see a significant number of these child categories are defining for a significant number of their contents. Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland for Mário Soares, Category:Bailiffs Grand Cross of the Order of St John for John Arbuthnott, 16th Viscount of ArbuthnottAnthony Mellows, Category:Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire for Millicent Fawcett. Is it possible for the nominator to withdraw this proposal or is that precluded by the ill-considered delete above? Thincat (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment Some discussants have suggested deleting the parent category. Although I had deliberately excluded the parent category from the nomination, I'm not opposed to deleting the parent category as well, I had merely excluded it from the nomination in order not to have two different discussions in one nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not for one moment should my !vote above be considered as supporting deletion of the parent. I simply think that it is not a foolish suggestion. Thincat (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Actually I would suggest, just for clarity, that people who desire so will nominate the deletion of the parent category in a separate CfD. After all, the parent category isn't tagged for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. I suspect that some of the child categories may have been inappropriately included in the parent but that may depend on exactly how the parent is defined. Thincat (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and William Halsey, Jr. likewise. Prince Philip is GBE (and is not "honorary") but his article doesn't consider it defining for him (it isn't even mentioned) although it is at List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. To do all this properly requires each article to be studied and non-defining categories removed. Then, if any category is empty or nearly empty it is a candidate for deletion. Thincat (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (perhaps purged) -- The problem with award categories is that they create clutter. That does not mean that we should not have a category of articles. In some cases a category may be appropriate. The problem is that heads of state tend to get given awards by lots of other states for diplomatic reasons. It is thus undesirable to have awards categories on their articles. However if the award is being given by a state or its own citizens (or in a few cases such as Hon GBE and Hon KBE) distinguished non-citizens, it may be appropriate to have them in an award category. Somehow we need to have a rule that excludes honours given for diplomatic reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And to be honest, I don't think WP:OCAWARD is a helpful guideline. In the first place, it doesn't reflect reality - awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists. Secondly, it is a bit hard to work out what the guideline is saying - it seems the "exceptions" clause is referring to cases where the award is not a defining characteristic - that is, we use categories when either (a) the award is a defining characteristic, or (b) when it is not a defining characteristic, but for whatever reason an exception can be granted. Thirdly, it doesn't give any hint about what the exceptions might be or why they are granted - the examples given are all for non-existent categories. Fourthly, the number of award categories is already far less than the number of extant awards, so the categories are relatively few in number anyway. Fifthly, I think as a community we have for a long time been deeply divided on the issue - there are editors who believe all award categories should be scrapped, and those who believe (virtually) all should exist - and so it is better to leave the issue alone. (See also Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Awards (again).) StAnselm (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: In assessing WP:OCAWARD, it's not very important that "awards are grouped as categories far more than they are grouped in lists". This is because any user can create a category, and it will continue to exist until there is consensus to delete it. A far more relevant assessment would be what is the usual outcome of CFDs in which award categories are nominated. And the answer to that is that they are usually deleted/listified—overwhelmingly so, in fact. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to be clear, Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire is not an exception to the rule, because the receipt of the award is a defining characteristic for at least some of the recipients. StAnselm (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories in the same situation are Category:Companions of the Star of Melanesia (it is a defining characteristic of Brian Bell), Category:Chief Commanders of the Philippine Legion of Honor (it is a defining characteristic of Lorenzo Tañada), Category:Grand Companions of the Order of Logohu (it is a defining characteristic of Rabbie Namaliu), Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of Lakandula (it is a defining characteristic of Fe del Mundo), etc. StAnselm (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NONDEF says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. In this case, with only one person in each of these categories for which the award might be defining, there is not the commonality or consistency that WP:NONDEF requires. Hence the rationale to delete is fully applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2015 (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:Theologians

[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: definition accepted. There seems to be consensus that the proposed definition should be implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See proposed definition of theologians category on the category page. As Category:Theologians is part of the Category:Occupations tree it is obvious that academic theologians should be classified here. The grey area with classifying "Theologians" is with clergy who wrote pastoral-theological, social-theological, political-theological books/texts/pamphlets that are not of clear academic theological interest. Should they be classified as Theologians or not? With the proposed definition, writing clergy should be classified as Theologians only by exception, but not as a rule. Essentially I would regret if the theologians tree would get too overloaded with people that are in the clergy tree anyway. I'm requesting consensus about this definition. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of many examples in the grey area is: Robert Austin (divine) of which it is not clear that the writings are of any academic theological interest. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps whether any of an author's theological works are notable on their own could be the demarkation point? I realize that, to keep it simple, it would unfortunately be necessary to include Rick Warren and The Purpose Driven Life, but just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to keep it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that Austin's book mentioned above gets a page or so discussion in this PhD thesis. That makes me think he's in the theologian category. "Ordinary" clergy aren't usually notable, anyway - if 17th century divines are notable, it's usually for their (theological) writing. StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, this is really a very useful comment in order to further clarify the nomination. Because the nomination is not about the writings of clergy, it is about the theological significance of the writings. In this case the writing is merely used as a source for a thesis in (church) history, rather than for a thesis in theology. For a thesis in (church) history just any (clerical) writing from the respective period may be significant, which would not be the case for a thesis in theology. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. This is a bit off track, but the disambiguation in some of these titles is perhaps a bigger issue. Austin is called a "divine", and the article links to a definition: "clergy whose theological writings have been considered standards for faith, doctrine, worship and spirituality". Are "divines" are a subset of "theologians", then? And if Austin is not a theologian, then it's more important to change the article lead ("was a puritan theologian and divine...") then changing the category. And if he's not actually a divine, then the article title needs to be changed. StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right, though I haven't touched the divines because the definition ("... have been considered...") is not quite clear on whether there is perhaps a fixed list of divines. If anyone knows more about this, please speak up. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category and refine according to the top-of-the-category description. Obviously this category needs to include academics like Charles Hodge, and it should also include clergy notable primarily because of their theologically polemical writing, such as Jack Deere (to give someone on the opposite end of the spectrum from Hodge). Deere's one of the tricky ones: he has comparatively little academic work (he taught for a few years, but his career's mostly been in the pulpit), but his work is definitely on the learned side and less on the popular side; he's far from the Joel Osteen types, whom the theologians study as (essentially) contemporary folk religion. We need this category to include the Deeres but to exclude the Osteens, to include less-credentialed people notable for scholarly-informed writings and to exclude people who only really write for the man on the street. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the concept of the "man on the street" changes. There are two aspects to this discussion, that of old theologians, and that of modern theologians. Even with Hodge, he wrote books for the man on the street, and they would be considered very heavy going today. Almost all 17th century religious writing is heavy-duty theology. Now, "heavy" is not quite the same thing as "academic", but there certainly are grey areas and fuzzy boundaries here. StAnselm (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the man on the street in Austin's day actually had some idea of theology, and even in Hodge's day; what remained of folk religion in 17th-century England was intertwined with "academic" theology (when Puritans such as Austin attacked a practice as "superstition", it was Catholic or something in the Anglican church that they perceived as a Catholic left-over; this wasn't enduring worship of Woden), and the man on Hodge's street was likewise living in a context in which "academic" theology, basic theological literacy, was still high. I say Deere's "less on the popular side" because he interacts with scholars of similar and opposing perspectives (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit isn't a how-to for getting the Second Blessing), not because he's hard to understand; I read some of his works in college freshman Bible class (he represented the opposite-from-Hodge perspective on the Pentecostalism debate), and although I had no academic background in theology, I still understood him quite easily. He writes for the man on Hodge's street, not for the typical man on his own street who knows nothing of theology, a huge difference from the Osteen types (e.g. The Prayer of Jabez), and we need to make a distinction between the Hodge-or-Deere types and the Osteen types. Nyttend (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with proposed definition: people should only be classed as theologians when they have made clear contributions to develop the field of theology. A broader definition would include all the clergy tree, thus reducing the value of this category. A similar useful division can be seen in Category:Educators (practitioners) and Category:Educationists (theory), although we don't have the benefit of alternate terms for the two in terms of theology. SFB 16:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would suggest that we should be limiting this to those producing academic or devotional works, not every clergyman who has had a theology degree as part of his training. However, is this the right place for us to be discussing this? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I have is with devotional works of non-academic theological interest. Most clerics in Wikipedia have written something if only to be notable for an article, but I would propose to be very reluctant to classify them in the theologians tree as an occupation, for the reason that SFB just described very well. (As for your second question, this is a category discussion, isn't it?) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2014 (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:20th & 21th Century Science Fiction Television Series

[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 delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 15:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't really see the value in this orphaned cat that was created today. Another editor decided to redirect it to Category:20th & 21st Century Science Fiction Television Series because of the "21th" error, but that category uses incorrect capitalisation and the editor that moved the cat didn't bother moving any of the files. Neither category was added to any other categories so this category is orphaned. In all, quite a mess. AussieLegend () 13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that this cat doesn't seem to have a place in the Category:Science fiction television series tree. There are no similarly categories for the 20th and 21st centuries and every science fiction TV series ever created would seem to qualify for inclusion. --AussieLegend () 13:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I naively created this category not realising that there was already a science fiction television series category, thus the content from this category would most likely duplicate the aforementioned content of category because all television content is native to the 20th and 21st century. Therefore I will move all articles in the category to the proper science fiction television series category (Category:Science_fiction_television_series ) and it shall be deleted.--Techhead55 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The articles don't belong in Category:Science fiction television series. They belong in appropriate subcategories. --AussieLegend () 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further elaborate. Why is Category:Science fiction television series not an appropriate category?--Techhead55 (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained this on your talk page. --AussieLegend () 14:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for this inconvenience and now understand--Techhead55 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove If it were split into both is may make more sense but currently there are only Sci-Fi TV shows from those centuries because TV was made in the 20th and we are currently in the 21st. The Category is just shouldn't exist.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (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:Pathé's Luke films

[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:Lonesome Luke films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT by performance, not-needed and poorly worded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:13, 20 December 2014 (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:Victims of Blasphemy law in Pakistan

[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:People convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan. Using "in" rather than "by" avoids the question of whether the conviction was by the federal government or by a province). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NPOV. WP:BLP concerns with labeling people as "victims". Also, which "blasphemy law"? One in the present, multiple ones in the future, something in the past? Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This categories the people who have been murdered or prosecuted under Blasphemy law in Pakistan.The nominator can read the article and also the pages categorized.There is no WP:NPOV. WP:BLP issues . Shyamsunder (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2014 (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:People from Talke

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 01:00, 20 December 2014 (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:People from Marlborough Township, 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 00:57, 20 December 2014 (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:People from Great Haywood

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 00:52, 20 December 2014 (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:Narrow streets

[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. From the discussion, it seems that creating a list may off more benefits. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While all three articles in this category are indisputably very narrow, there's no objective way to know which articles should be included. And what's considered a wide street in Warsaw may be considered narrow in Los Angeles. The articles are already well represented elsewhere in the Category:Roads tree so there is no need for a merge. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Measurement. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per RevelationDirect's question. Narrowness indeed gets coverage in some instances, but often it's because the street isn't as wide as others around it. Unless someone's putting forth a study of specifically narrow streets (instead of narrower-than-nearby-streets streets), it's all relative, and that's not helpful for categorisation here. Tall ships — there's a solid concept of tall ship, with rigid definitions in some quarters, and apparently a popular concept in general, By the 21st century, "Tall ship" is often used generically for large, classic, sailing vessels. Is there a comparable definition of "narrow street"? Note the absence of a Narrow street article. In short, deletion is appropriate because, although streets sometimes get coverage for being narrow, this is still quite subjective, so it's not particularly useful for navigation. [Note that I editconflicted with RD's modified question; he mentioned Elfreth's Alley in the question to which I was responding.] Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a question? I would say they shouldn't be added - LaSalle Street is described in the article as relatively narrow. There is no Narrow street article, but there is an Alley article. StAnselm (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete per a question — by "per" I mean "because of what was said there". His question about the narrower-than-other streets is a convincing reason for deletion, as I see it. If you want to make an argument for Category:Alleys, I'm open to the idea, but alleys are quite different from some narrow streets; it definitely wouldn't be appropriate for the narrow LaSalle Street, and the articles on Strada sforii and Parliament Street, Exeter don't use "alley" except in the See alsos. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I was going to say was about Elfreth's Alley is that it's actually relatively wide compared to many streets in the Old City section of Philadelphia. Now, if it was in the The Great Northeast section of the same city, it would be relatively narrow. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I was there for the first time in October, I was surprised by its width; I was expecting something about six feet wide, but someone (how, I'm not sure) had parked a car in the middle. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article on streets, an expressway would not generally be referred to as a street. As for LaSalle Street, the question is whether it be notable for that aspect. That said, as noted below, alley may be a more appropriate term for this category. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my tag on your talk page to see if we can reach a consensus about creating an alternative category. Thanks!RevelationDirect (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2014 (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.