Category:Mosques in Worcester, Massachusetts[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge an overly specific category. The one article in the category lacks any sources, so it may well not be notable enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge since this doesn't aid navigation but with no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2019 (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.
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 just looked at the nominated category, here most articles have "view" in the title. Oddly, all articles in the subcategories have "position" in the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support "views" is more appropriate. Anatoliatheo (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I go to the articles about Corbyn and Cameron each starts "This article concerns the policies, views and voting record of ...". But the American and Philippine articles talk about positions. Maybe this in an MOS:ENGVAR, which is why I didn't get what the category was about on first inspection? Rathfelder (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can this be re-listed to re-start the discussion? It's been open for nearly a month, but seems to have halted. I have a very cogent comment that might move things forward. @Rathfelder:Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There isn't complete consistency with the naming of the articles in this cat but the proposed name is the most common. No objection to relisting. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this could do with more discussion. I don't think "Policies", "Views", and "Positions" mean exactly the same thing. I'm not convinced that its a useful category at all. All these articles have in common is that they have a seperate article about their views. I guess thousands of biographical articles have extensive coverage of the subjects views. Do we add them to this category? Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2019 (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 result of the discussion was:manual merge to relevant categories, as needed. ~ Rob13Talk 10:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category note says "The mostly European/Eurasian field of Politology is different in orientation from American-defined Political Science, to which it is related". But there is no article about politology. And speaking as a fairly assiduous follower of politics I've never heard of it. There is a section in the article Clermont County, Ohio but it doesn't shed much light on the subject. The Politics article says: "The academic study focusing on just politics, which is therefore more targeted than all Political science, is sometimes referred to as Politology (not to be confused with Politicology)." Perhaps someone cleverer than me can explain what that means. But until someone does I cant see what is supposed to go in this category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I found this link, it is probably just a typo in translation, meant as politicology. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We dont have an article on Politicology either.Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective, manual merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. While there probably is some distinction between "Politology" and "Political science", any distinction is too subtle create separate category trees without huge overlap.
I'm quite happy to do that. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective manual merge. The term "politology" exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to political science, and the article contains no content explaining or reliably sourcing the category usage note's assertion that there's a meaningful or defining distinction between the two terms — perhaps there is one, but we have no content to contextualize what it might be. But BrownHaired Girl is entirely correct that many of the contents here more properly belong in subcategories, such as Category:Political scientists or a national subcat of that, rather than in the main target category for political science itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2019 (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.
Comment It looks like the category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 03:41, 10 February 2019 (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.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom to match the parent article. Ben5218 (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Support per WP:C2D, Consistency with main article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2019 (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: Afaics no other flora/fauna is categorized for the Congo Basin region. We have other categories that do a better job of providing comprehensive non-overlapping categorization (and the other categories are generally defined by countries so can be more easily matched to article text). Example previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_23#Category:Birds_of_Equatorial_Africa. Note: Few, if any, of the articles in the category (e.g. Western citril) mention the Congo Basin. Note: The creator of this category has been blocked. DexDor(talk) 07:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can be convinced to change my vote, but as it stands, this seems like a valid and useful category. The Congo Basin is a major geographical feature around which a certain set of unique flora and fauna would be expected to thrive. Central Africa seems like a larger, more general categorization. A really paranoid android (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Few, if any, articles in this category mention the Congo Basin; they mostly list the countries in which in the bird is found (e.g. see Blue-headed sunbird). So how should we decide whether or not an article belongs in the category rather than just being in the Central Africa parent (i.e. what would the inclusion criteria for this category be)? In other words, even if this category might be useful to readers we don't have sufficient information (in articles) to support the category (unless we define Congo Basin by national boundaries - which wouldn't fit geographic reality).
For info: I'm trying to simplify and explain the organisms-of-place categorization scheme (see User:DexDor/BioGeoCat) with the aim to produce some guidelines; categories such as this (which don't mesh with the rest of the categorization) add to the complexity of the scheme.
Merge per nom, to standardise the geographical categories for flauna and flora in this area. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 20 February 2019 (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 Church (Disciples of Christ) cathedrals[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. Killiondude (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 1 article in the category. Besides the article is not about a cathedral in the usual sense of the word (namely a bishop's church). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No bishop, no cathedra, no cathedral, no category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This comment suggests that deletion is a better option than merging. I am also fine with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some denominations that actually do use the name cathedral for places without a bishop, and lots more that have bishops with no cathedrals. Wikipedia is not a place to advance one particular orthdoxy. Beyond that we follow the conventions of common name and not proper or official name. However in this case the Disciples of Christ do not refer to the building as a cathedral, so there is no justification to categorize it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only article makes no reference to it being a "cathedral". Already in another DoC category RevelationDirect (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2019 (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.
