Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Category:Fictional troublemakers[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) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Very broad and poorly defined category. See also the cfd for the slightly similar category Fictional antagonists -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, no Dennis the Menace?? That can't be right. And Why'a Dog? Why'a not'a Duck??? [With minor apologies to Groucho and Chico] Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rrright-a, why a duck? Why-a no chicken? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very loose criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire - no, absolutely not, not no way not no how. Completely inappropriate basis for categorization. I can't think of any fictional character that doesn't cause trouble for another fictional character at some point. Superman would fit here because of the trouble he causes to Lex Luthor and other supervillains. Otto4711 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too broad, with its own built-in POV and original research issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's debated when someone is a troublemaker or not. Martarius (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and completely subjective. faithless (^speak) 23:24, 24 November 2008 (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:Wikipedians in Montréal[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: Moved to WP:UCFD. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Montréal to Category:Wikipedians in Montreal

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category needs to be renamed to match the common English spelling of main article Montreal, and for that matter, master category Category:Wikipedians in Quebec, neither of which use the accented "é" in the English Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:CANSTYLE#French_names . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Consistent with the well-established consensus on the English Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist at WP:UCFD. Otto4711 (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to use the cfr-user template, but I can't figure out how to fill it in so it doesn't say CATEGORY UNKNOWN... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed and moved. Further discussion on this should take place at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians in Montréal. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (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:Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party[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:Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party to Category:Scottish Conservative Party, Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party politicians to Category:Scottish Conservative Party politicians, Category:Conservative and Unionist MSPs to Category:Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament, leaving category redirects. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party to Category:Scottish Conservative Party

Propose renaming Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party politicians to Category:Scottish Conservative Party politicians

Propose renaming Category:Conservative and Unionist MSPs to Category:Conservative MSPs

Nominator's rationale: Rename all, the main article is at Scottish Conservative Party following a move some nineteen months ago. The categories should use the same title. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't MSP be expanded to Members of the Scottish Parliament? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the MSP by party categories use the short form - see Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament by party. I'd guess this is for brevity but don't have strong feelings either way on that point. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to Comments: (1) MSP should be expanded (2) The full name of the party is "Conservative and Unionist". Accordingly, if renamed, the existing form should be retained as a redirect. Personally, I favour short category names, hence support in principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Conservative and Unionist" may be the full formal name but it's used less and less (hence the article name). Timrollpickering (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. MSP should probably be expanded for all the party cats, but this should be done together in another nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (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:Puppet Abbasid caliphs[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:Cairo-era Abbasid caliphs. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Puppet Abbasid caliphs to Category:Abbasid caliphs

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the name is just generally a bad idea. I don't think using "puppet" as a descriptive term is a good idea.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Abbasid caliphs in Cairo, or perhaps Category:Cairo-era Abbasid caliphs. There is no separate category for this period, unlike Category:Avignon Papacy for example, but it does seem to be a useful distinction, save the "puppet" epithet.-choster (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I know little of the subject, but "puppet" seems excessively derogatory: I assume they had some power or authority, even if only local, or the equivalent of the British queen, who has a Prime Minister to rule for her. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The listed caliphs date from after the fall of Baghdad, when the dynasty moved to Cairo; it is a period, rather than a characteristic of any particular ruler, and I do not think the category creator intended to cast aspersion. Notified of this discussion.-choster (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Choster - "period" would be better than "era" & the first suggestion is probably best. Johnbod (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen the term "Abbasid puppet caliphs" used on sites such as this one, but I'm happy with a rename to Category:Abbasid caliphs in Cairo. --GCarty (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reading the relevant article Abbasid Caliphate, I see no mention of puppet, but I also see no name for these caliphs. They resided in Cairo as religious leaders after fleeing Baghdad, having lost control of any territory. Category:Cairo-era Abbasid caliphs mioght be the best of the two choices offerred by choster Hmains (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2008 (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:Lists of theologists and religious scholars[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) 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lists of theologians and religious scholars for consistency with other categories and articles. (Theologian is also by far the more commonly used term.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.-choster (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match subcats of this cat and more common use. Hmains (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to the existing Category:Theologians and Category:Religious scholars, which is for scholars in the academic field of religious studies.--Editor2020 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (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:Religious people[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 associated with religion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Delete~~ Rename per Ashley Y I feel this category should be renamed because of the loose and varying definition of the word "religious". Who decides who is religious and who isn't? The category isn't added to that often either, just look at the page. Parthian Scribe 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a parent for many subcats and the subcats are not being nominated for deletion so this this cat is needed and appropriate Hmains (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help to rename it to "People associated with religion"? —Ashley Y 06:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. Parthian Scribe 03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as an excellent idea. Keep and Rename to Category:People associated with religion. Cgingold (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to Category:People associated with religion, but this should only be used as a parent category. If there is not one already a warning to that effect should be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename proposed by Peter King Iron. The name is extremely vague and seems open to an inexperienced user sorting a person here when they may need to be be 3 or 4 categories down the chain.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
change my position to rename proposal of Peter King Iron Hmains (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really Ashley Y's idea. Cgingold (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:People associated with religion which better captures the purpose of the category. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above Johnbod (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Religious figures which does better capture the purpose of the category.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Religious figures per Carlaude; seems the best choice here. Terraxos (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - to Category:People associated with religion or philosophy. Most of what's here is already there and it seems silly to maintain both categories. If renamed, not to Category:Religious figures because it suffers the same vagueness that led to the recent deletion of the similarly named Political figures category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2008 (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.