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.
I find it clear enough, mainly because we don't have any top level category structure for topics that goes by the form "Category:World X". SFB03:27, 18 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:RenameCategory:Radio plays to match main article Radio drama. "Dramas" is a better word than "plays", as it covers long-running programs.
Although the main article starts "Radio drama (or audio drama, audio play, radio play, radio theater) is a dramatized, purely acoustic performance, broadcast on radio or published on audio media, such as tape or CD", it becomes clear that not all audio dramas are actually broadcast on radio. Therefore audio dramas should not all be categorised within the hierarchy of Radio or Category:Radio programs, but only Radio dramas; and Category:Audio plays should become a parent category of Radio dramas.
Question are all "plays" dramas? just because they are on the radio? Some plays I assumed were comedies, farces, mysteries, musicals, operas, and other genres... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis that all the content at present relates to radio dramas. However, I think the distinction should be made that not all such plays are dramas. Radio comedy plays are a particularly common type as well. The description and structure of Category:Audio plays should be changed to distinguish this. Then we should have categories by medium (e.g. radio, podcast) and categories by genre (e.g. drama, comedy etc). SFB22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, "drama" here is not to be read as a genre. There are intersections of medium and genre, e.g. Category:Radio programs by genre, but I don't think we want to create such fine intersections as radio comedy plays; they can be categorised as radio plays and as comedy radio programs. – FayenaticLondon14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps Category:Radio plays is fine, but needs a new parent Category:Radio dramas which would also hold radio soaps such as Category:British radio soap operas. In that case, "audio plays" could be kept as a parent of "radio plays", but "audio dramas" would be better as the overarching parent, and we probably don't need both "audio dramas" and "audio plays". Most of what are currently called "audio plays" would be better named "audio dramas" due to their long duration. – FayenaticLondon14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think where the confusion lies may be in international naming of things, but I'm not positive. Also, radio format is different than "genre of fiction presented on radio".
Fiction presented on radio is almost always in the form of a play. In that parts are read from a script (or partially or fully ad libbed). So that's why radio play is the top category. under that we can split by genre, such as drama, comedy, children's etc., with "soap" in most cases being a subcat of drama.
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 who are namesakes of streets in Halifax, Nova Scotia
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 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.
Anti-Xxx sentiment categories and some Persecution of ... categories
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.
Oppose changing the "sentiments" categories to "discrimination". Since many of these already match the name of the relevant main article, as noted, I would prefer the category names to simply match the article name, as per usual practice. Also, the sentiment (or attitude) must by definition come before any discrimination occurs (otherwise it is not discrimination), so I think the current names are actually broader and thus more appropriate. A sentiment can be pervasive in a society without any actual discrimination occurring. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good Ol’factoryPeterkingiron Then what is the solution? Do we have second categories on "Anti-Xxx discrimination" topics as well? When a group like the Yazidis get massacred then this fits under discrimination. Sentiment does not cut it. Any positive or negative form or sentiment is a form of discrimination. A person concerned is discriminating in regard to a viewpoint taken on a person or thing. GregKaye16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sentiment" is not necessarily "discrimination"—the former is considerably broader than the latter. Sentiment is a feeling or attitude. Often, the sentiment can lead to actions which constitute discrimination, but it doesn't always do so. For there to be discrimination, there has to be an action, not just a feeling or attitude. Therefore, because sentiment is broader than discrimination, any discrimination can be legitimately placed in the sentiment category. I agree that "sentiment" can be a bit of an unusual word to use when severe acts of discrimination are committed, but it does prevent us from having two separate category schemes where we divide discrimination from mere sentiments. I don't think we need both. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think we want to go with a more clearly defined term. I also think we need to consider whether biographical aritcles should be in these categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just looking at the Chinese section, not all the things there are discrimination. Some deal with terms that are negative, but not inherently linked to discrimination. Others deal more with actions taken to lessen Chinese cultural influence in other parts of East and South-east Asia, which do not always involve discrimination either. Some other articles on other topics will likewise cover expessions that are against a certain topic on an intellectual level and not really count as discrimination. We have articles on some of these things, and grouping them in this way is useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 6 March 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support merge and leave as redirect to avoid further confusion, which seems likely as a common anachronistic mistake. SFB22:23, 6 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.
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.
So while religious leaders in other comparable Protestant traditions (such as Category:Baptist ministers) on Wikipedia are organized in inclusive categories like "minister" and "clergy", Pentecostalism alone must not have a simple clergy category? This just doesn't make sense to me. Before the November 2014 discussion, there was a Category: Pentecostal clergy and, in my opinion, it worked quite well. Ltwin (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Baptists and Methodists mostly use "minister" for the person who leads/shepherds the congregation (although some Baptists also use "pastor" to mean the exact same thing). No denomination should be categorising people by roles that are not defining. – FayenaticLondon09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the normal term in these denominations is "pastor". That is not reaon why the parent should not be a category of "ministers" or "clergy". However, if I wanted to be pedantic, clergy is clerks in holy orders, which applies to Anglicans. Non-conformists are "ministers of religion". The world is complicated and will not fit precvisely into WP boxes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is with the assertion that Pentecostals only use the term "pastor" and never "minister." The "normal" terminology in Pentecostal churches is to use "minister" for clergy in general, whether they are pastors or not. For the record, I'm a lifelong Pentecostal, so I speak from experience. For example, the Assemblies of God has a Ministers Directory rather than a "Pastors Directory" and publishes an Minister's Letter and requires Minister's Dues and issues Ministerial Credentials. Ltwin (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different argument from the one in your nomination, and appears to contradict it, but perhaps refers only to AoG. Are these documents for the shepherds rather than the broader category? In that case it would be right to rename the AoG category from pastors to ministers, just as there are exceptions within the Methodist categories (immediately below last year's CfD linked above). I understand that "pastor" is the usual term among Pentecostals in the UK at least. – FayenaticLondon09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To specifically answer your question, the AG in the US does not have any ministerial status known as "pastor". This is a role and title given to some but not all ministers: "Three classifications of ministry are recognized and transferable among all Assemblies of God districts: the ordained minister, the licensed minister, and the certified minister." (see p. 121 of AG Constitution and Bylaws).
I don't think it contradicts my original argument at all. A Minister is someone officially set apart through licensure and/or ordination to perform full time ministry. "Pastor" is a role that ministers perform. Not all Ministers pastor. Some Ministers teach in theological institutions. Other ministers perform evangelistic (and in modern times televangelism) and/or healing ministries. However, no matter what role one is currently performing, they are all Ministers.
I won't claim to know how language is used everywhere in the world, but the Assemblies of God in Great Britain's website uses both "pastor" and "senior minister" when speaking of a minister in charge of a church and "minister" when speaking of clergy in general:
An AoG Minister is a person of exemplary character and good reputation, living a biblical and Spirit-filled life. He/She possesses a conviction about their divine calling to ministry which is acknowledged and endorsed by AoG Leadership. They are committed to the Statement of Faith, core values and the relevant training requirements, while working relationally with AoG apostolic leadership.
Further comment -- I would not assert that Pentecostals never use "minister", only "pastor", but that pastor is the more common term. Equally, Baptists, Methodists, etc more usually use "minister", rather than "pastor". It would not surprise me if usage differs from one country to another. We do not have sibling Pentecostal categories, making it necessary to split the Pentecostals according to whether they are ministers or pastors (which is clearly impossible, or at best a POV issue). I am suggesting that Pentecostal pastors and Baptist ministers should both be subcategories of Protestant clergy by denomination (or something of that kind). If AoG prefer the term minister (and this is probably only in formal contexts - not common usage), AoG ministers could be a subcateogry of Pentecostal pastors, but that is a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a problem with a category for Pentecostal ministers with a subcategory for pastors, evangelists, etc. My problem is that right now there is no category that all Pentecostal clergy can fit into as exists for every other Christian denomination on Wikipedia. Persons who are ordained ministers but not pastors, such as Gordon Fee and Stanley M. Horton, can't be categorized as clergy. Ltwin (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. Fee and Horton are both categorised as Category:Pentecostal theologians, which is in Category:Pentecostal religious workers (created after this nomination, as stated above) – that provides the common category in common with other denominations. "Clergy" is ambiguous and unnecesary; several denominations' "clergy" categories have been merged into the equivalent pastor-level (religious leader) category already. – FayenaticLondon14:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a solution. A lay person can be a theologian. Both Fee and Horton are ordained ministers, but they cannot be categorized as such because the category they would have fallen into has been renamed to a more specific category. Ltwin (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind having the pastor category be a subcategory of a broader ministry category. We do need a ministry category for Pentecostal ministers who don't fit nicely into the "pastoral" role. While I can't say for sure because I do not know anything about him other than what I've found online, no source identifies Rickie D. Moore as an ordained minister. He is by any standard a recognized theologian and currently the chair of the Department of Theology at Lee University, and it would be unusual for his ministerial status to be omitted.
Then of course we have cases like Hermano Pablo who was ordained with the Assemblies of God but never pastored. He was a radio evangelist, yet he was still was an ordained minister like all AG pastors. He's now in the Assemblies of God pastors category. Ltwin (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a citation for Moore's ordination. Pablo should be re categorised as Pentecostal evangelist or missionary.
It seems to me that what we should categorise by is not whether someone was ordained (i.e. Clergy/minister), but what they do with that recognition, whether leading a congregation, teaching theology, or mission. As there are no pages for people who do not fit into the more detailed categories, we don't need the ambiguous category "ministers" as well. – FayenaticLondon14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize however that all other Christian denominations retain a category that describes general clergy/minister except Pentecostalism. So, while its all fine and good for you to want Wikipedia to categorize on the basis of what a person does with their ministerial recognition, as it stands currently, Wikipedia only expects that when it comes to Pentecostalism. Other Christian clergy are clearly categorized as clergy or minister (both non-specific terms) instead of specific roles such as pastor. Ltwin (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCategory:Pentecostal religious workers is a good top level category, rather than the looser "ministers" which could provoke unwanted duplication of theologians, etc. I think the religious workers parent category types are very useful for this area and provide a clear and common structure to build from. SFB22:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The requested change harmonizes to the terminology elsewhere in Wikipedia and aligns to the biblical designation of "pastors" as being the elders or presbyters of the local congregation. "Minister" is clearly the term most insulated from any particular doctrinal decision by any faith community within Christendom. Rammer (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Observe, Fayenatic LondonLondon, that the English Wikipedia article on the profession is titled Minister (Christianity). "Minister" is the term which all faith communities within Christendom can accept, unambiguously. To use "pastor" in that sense is in effect a doctrinal position, and Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to NPOV. Rammer (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That precisely illustrates the problem with the nomination. What is needed is a set of categories corresponding to the role of Minister (Christianity), leaders of congregations, across all denominations. However, in Pentecostalism or at least the AoG, the word Minister is used for ordained persons – who elsewhere would be called clergy – whether or not they serve as leaders of congregations. It is therefore more specific to use the word pastor, and this helps to achieve a tier of categories where the contents have a consistent role.
As for your second point, we do not force the use of uniform words in category names in contexts where such words are not used. For example, we are not going to rename Roman Catholic priests to "ministers".
If my proposal to merge the "clergy" tier is rejected, then it might be appropriate to insert a "Pentecostal ministers" layer as that denomination's word for clergy. However, that should not be done by renaming the category of local leaders to something ambiguous. – FayenaticLondon10:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just don't think most editors are using the categories in the way you would like. We have a Category: Lutheran clergy even though a search for "Lutheran clergy" only gets 39,800 hits on google. "Lutheran priest" returns 45,000 results. Yet "Lutheran pastor" gets 351,000 results. Obviously, "pastor" is used more than "clergy" in relation to Lutheranism. "Pentecostal pastor" returns 102,000 results, and "Pentecostal minister" returns 76,000 results. Why does Lutheranism get a general clergy category, but Pentecostalism cannot have a comparable general ministry category? Or to phrase this a different way, why doesn't Lutheranism have to have a "pastors" category that excludes other ordained ministers? Ltwin (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lutheranism should have one as well. If you are referring to my proposal at Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories, I was wrongly assuming that Lutherans use "clergy" for its leaders; thanks to the evidence you have given, I will propose renaming its categories. However, it may be more difficult to remove the "clergy" layer for Roman Catholics, although I still intend to propose that as well. – FayenaticLondon11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be "unwise" if Pentecostals did not use the term "minister" to describe their clergy, but, as I've demonstrated with sources, Pentecostals do use the term "minister". It is not necessary to use the restrictive term "pastor" when categorizing Pentecostal clergy when there is a better term available that no Pentecostal would object to. Ltwin (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From what I am reading above, "pastors" categories (if they should even exist), should be subcats of "ministers". Or to put it another way: Apparently all pastors are ministers, but not all ministers are pastors. So, Ltwin, wouldn't the easier solution be to create "Minister" categories as parents to the "Pastor" cats, which could then also include all the other types the nom is concerned about? - jc3721:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37, I wouldn't be opposed to that, but as this discussion shows, there are editors who feel that there shouldn't be any "minister" category at all. The reason I phrased my original proposal the way I did was that originally there was a "Pentecostal clergy" category, which functioned in much the same manner as you propose for a "minister category". This clergy category was renamed to the much more limited "pastor" category. So, my original proposal was just to fix the problem by renaming the category. Ltwin (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. And technically, the result should be to rename the categories from pastors to ministers, then split out the pastors into a subcat. But at this stage, just for ease of editing, just create the minister parent cats, and categorise appropriately. - jc3714:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37:@Ltwin:@Johnpacklambert:@Fayenatic london:Comment the request is really to make a distinction between ordination and occupation. In Roman Catholicism this distinction is being made naturally, because priests who become a theologian (occupation) still remain a priest (ordination). So I wouldn't find it strange to have the same distinction in Protestantism. In this particular case, it would imply the nomination not to go ahead, but instead to create new categories for ministers that are parent categories of pastors. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 29 March 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:Civil rights movement during the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge While I see that this category has been around since 2008, I don't understand why we would split a continuous movement into presidential terms. Certainly the Johnson era was a climactic one for the movement, I'm not disputing that, but should we categorize the African American civil rights movement by presidencies? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. This category is also/primarily a subcat of Category:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson showing the events occurring during the course of his presidency and helped by his presidency. The reason there are not such categories for other presidents is simple: Johnson's time is when the action took place. There are only a few articles attached to other presidency categories, not enough for a category for them. Hmains (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure what the actual association would be, for most of them, which are marches, riots, the Black Panther Party, the shooting of MLK, etc.There are several LBJ bills, though. So a purge if kept, surely, per Peterkingiron. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this some more, another way would be repurpose this as Johnson administration civil rights legislation, but that could be a violation of WP:SMALLCAT, as this is a small and very finite group. So we're left with a buncha stuff that either coincidentally happened during Johnson's six or so years in office following JFK's assassination, or was actually carried out by LBJ in one form or another. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria for these US presidential categories includes events that occurred during the administration, not only those that were the result of administration actions. See various such categories. Hmains (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is largely categorisation through contemporaneous means, rather than a means of causation (which would be defining). As such, it's not really defining a feature as the president of the time has largely not been the way this history has been framed. It is framed in the broader civil rights movement which affected the society as a whole, not simply the president of the day. SFB22:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The Civil Rights movement is thought of as a unified whole, and it is not as if tactics changed the day JFK died, so this is also an artificial divide, that either will double categorize some articles or exclude some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 1 February 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.
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 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.
