Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28[edit]

People by Taiwanese descent[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. Kbdank71 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow other categories like Category:Americans of Dutch descent. impactF=check this 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Category:Taiwanese Americans as is. With a few exceptions (that should not be) the naming standard for etnics in the US is 'fooian Amercans'. This is an American exception based on documented local usage. See Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Hmains (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT by race/ethnicity + nationality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The suggested rename is far more clear and comprehensible to a non-specific(ally American) audience. Similar cat pages for other countries already follow what s become an established naming pattern. Local usage should reflect the naming of article pages but not category pages. (The specifically American usage however should be noted at the head of the American page.) Mayumashu (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We had a long series of discussions a few months ago concerning these expatriate categories. With a few exceptions (usually where one of the terms was not strictly national), all categories were renamed to this format due to the efforts of Mayumashu. This was not applied to American ethnicities, but probably should have been. These three seem to be ones that he missed. There are hundreds of categories of this type, and some will be well-populated: Carlossuarez46's view is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2009 (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:Ancient Synagogues[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 rename.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ancient Synagogues to Category:Ancient synagogues
Nominator's rationale: Rename with correct capitalisation Ian Cairns (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (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:Recipients of the Bronze Star medal[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 rename as capitalization error. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star medal to Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal
Nominator's rationale: Rename, capitalizing "Medal" to match the title of the parent article Bronze Star Medal. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The official name of the medal is the Bronze Star Medal, as distinguished from the Silver Star. Oddly enough, I don't see the reason documented in the article; I guess I should start looking for a source to cite. Rklear (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename - capitalization errors can be fixed without a full CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2009 (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:Years in space exploration[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Years in space exploration to Category:Years in spaceflight
Note, this move request applies to all subcategories as well as the category itself
Added: Propose renaming Category:History of space exploration to Category:History of spaceflight
Added: Propose merging Category:Space exploration timelines into Category:Timelines of spaceflight
Nominator's rationale: Space exploration is a limited area of spaceflight. These categories are already being used to categorise articles related to other areas, unrelated to exploration. I am therefore suggesting that they be renamed to reflect this. Last year, WikiProject Space Exploration was renamed WikiProject Spaceflight, and the Space Exploration portal was merged into Portal:Spaceflight for the same reasons. It seems logical to do the same with these categories. GW… 18:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn, see below --GW… 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm less concerned about the fact that only a few of the sub-cats have been tagged for renaming than I am about the fact that all of the parent categories (going up the "tree") use the term "exploration". Doesn't your rationale apply equally to all of those other categories? Why are you starting here, and how would it make sense to change these cats while leaving the others at their current names? Cgingold (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A major advantage of using the term "spaceflight" in category names is that its meaning is relatively unambiguous and its use is generally uncontentious. In contrast it can occasionally be difficult for individual editors to clearly determine -- or for groups of editors to reach consensus on -- whether a given spaceflight mission should be categorised as a "space exploration" mission, or whether an article about a topic that doesn't directly involve spaceflight should nonetheless be included in a "space exploration" category. Categories with "spaceflight" in their names are thus easier for editors to use. At the same time, they might also be more likely to provide readers with what they expect, which would be a good thing indeed! (sdsds - talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - space exploration is a broad category, of which spaceflight is an appropriate subcategory. Otto4711 (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? It's the other way round. --GW… 07:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, the term spaceflight refers to anything that goes into space, whereas the term space exploration refers to any spaceflight made to explore space or another planet. Therefore, space exploration should be a subcategory of spaceflight. Spacecraft such as communications satellites, Earth imaging satellites, weather satellites, etc, are unrelated to exploration even though they are spaceflights. Space exploration is actually quite a narrow category, and if this move does not go through, then I think it is likely that we will be back here discussing the deletion of these categories as underpopulated (once all irrelevant articles have been removed), quite soon. --GW… 07:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the view that GW_Simulations describes is evidence of a much bigger logical division between the two. I think both viewpoints are correct, ultimately. Spaceflight is not always Space Exploration, nor does Space Exploration always require Spaceflight. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but they move independant of eachother, especially now that there's more commercial interest in spaceflight. As such on a strictly logical level I'd say I support the rename. But I can see GW's point on the practicality of fully splitting the two, leaving a lot of underpopulated categories. I guess I'd register as an abstention. As a curious sidenote, this discussion calls into question the current accuracy of Space Exploration Technology (SpaceX)'s corporate name. aremisasling (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per Space exploration, exploration includes both space-based and terrestrial exploration of space. Exploration is not limited to extraterrestrial content and our categories should reflect that. Otto4711 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In their current use, the vast majority of these categories contain articles which are relevant to spaceflight, but not to exploration (extraterrestrial or otherwise), hence the proposal. Very few "terrestrial" space exploration (note that whether this should actually be considered exploration or research is debatable, I favour the latter) related articles are listed, and they could easily be recategorised. --GW… 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point still stands that "space exploration" is not interchangeable with "spaceflight". Thus both category systems are valid and both should be retained separately and populated. There is nothing stopping any editor from creating and populating Category:Years in spaceflight without obliterating the "years in space exploration" category. The same goes for the other nominated category. If articles about spaceflight are incorrectly categorized under space exploration or vice-versa, that's an editing problem. Recategorize the articles, don't get rid of the categories. Otto4711 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, withdrawn for now. I'll create a new set of categories, and remove anything that does not qualify as "exploration" from the current ones. I may bring this up again later (as a merge or delete request) if it becomes clear that the SE categories are underpopulated --GW… 19:12, 30 January 2009 (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:Ulaanbaatar[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ulaanbaatar to Category:Ulan Bator
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Article is under Ulan Bator, should be in sync. Gryffindor (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. per convention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and extensive discussions on the name, linked from Talk:Ulan Bator, which have settled on "Ulan Bator" over a half-dozen other variations.-choster (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Vastly better-known name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2009 (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:Wells[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 . Having said that, this category can be recreated to serve as a container category for the structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wells to Category:Wells, Somerset
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A well is a hole in the ground used for extracting underground fluids such as water, oil or gas. The title Category:Wells suggests a category for such entities. (We already have Category:Water wells and Category:Oil wells, and it is a discussion for another day whether there should be an overarching category for all such wells.) In fact this category is meant for "articles associated with the city of Wells in the English county of Somerset". This is totally unintuitive and unexpected for the vast majority of readers. Hesperian 13:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the main article on wikipedia for Wells is about the city in Somerset it seems sensible to have the Category:Wells also associated with the city. Perhaps Category:Well could cover the holes in the ground described above?— Rod talk 14:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It happens that "Wells" is the name of the Cathedral city as well as being the pural of well. I fear that just as Georgia (US State) and Georgia (country) have to have disambiguators, to the annoyance of many US citizens, it is probably necessary in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not support the rename. The article is Wells, the commons category is Wells, and there are already separate categories for Water wells, Oil wells and Holy wells. I cannot see any reason for renaming this category. If there is any desire to clear confusion then put links to the other categories on the Wells category page. --TimTay (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – certainly Category:Wells is ambiguous and must be renamed. I would say the article Wells should follow suit ... even to a UK resident the primary meaning of Wells is not a small place in Somerset (population 10,000). Occuli (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - This is as clear-cut case as I have ever seen, so renaming isn't optional -- it's required. Category names must meet a higher standard for clarity than articles. We deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis at CFD, so I can only surmise that folks who are opposed just aren't aware that category names are modified every day in order to avoid ambiguity. And since the advent of HotCat, this issue has assumed even greater importance, because it's so incredibly easy to add inappropriate categories without ever laying eyes on the category page. Cgingold (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename should be in sync with the article name that someone may be bold enough to move....perhaps after this goes through? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per cgingold et al. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no opinion, but has it not been established on several occasions that in such circs the more effective sequence of events is to rename the article first, thrashing out any issues there, and once consensus has been reached on the article, only then to bring the cats into line? "Dog first, then tail", as I think it has been put.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think are a bunch of discussion precedents that take that view, but I think more lately there have been others that have kind of said to hell with that approach when there is agreement that the category name is ambiguous. In my view, there seems to be a growing consensus that category names have to be completely unambiguous in a way that article names don't always need to be. Specifically, I'm thinking of this discussion where Category:Plymouth, Devon was adopted despite the article being at Plymouth. It seems to me that there were others that I can't quite recall of the top of my head. (Did it involve Category:Birmingham, England?) Perhaps it means that users are feeling that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply in to categories in the same way it applies to articles. It no doubt also involves the different way redirects work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, except I think that approach has always been there, just for cases liker this. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, though I couldn't find any specific examples ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sandford Category:Wells, Somerset. This is one of those (thankfully rare) cases where the article may be OK but the category is not, due to the singular nature of article names and the plural nature of category names. Category:Wells sounds like it should be the parent category for water wells, oil wells and the like. Luckily, there's no such thing as a Leed, and there's no category yet for Grays. Note, however, that the same situation does exist with the category of Category:Tours - whatever is decided with this one might affect that one as well. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the current name is stupid considering it's extreme genericity. I would say that the article is also at a bad name, but the category certainly is, because so many things would accidentally get categorized in it as named. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can see arguments for and against. The main problem seems to be caused by the Hot Cat application whose use in its current form is just asking for trouble. Otherwise I agree with Tim Tay that simple disambiguation on the category page should suffice. When it comes to the article name WP:SINGULAR suggests that (fluid) 'wells' should be 'well', but WP:NC:CITY says 'The general rule is to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name.' The latter could however require an awful lot of changes. So go figure. If the nominator thinks it is worth spending their time making all the changes necessary, then so be it. I can't see that it makes much of an improvement. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to be clear that my support for renaming is in no way based on HotCat -- I was merely pointing out that HotCat exacerbates the problem. Cgingold (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, what are the "arguments against" that you can see? As far as I can tell, the only argument against is that the article is at Wells, and in response to that a number of people have indicated that the article should be moved too. I'm wondering if there are other arguments that I have missed here. Hesperian 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments against - unnecessary effort (the nominator explicitly says there is no present need for a higher category for oil wells and water wells); category pages are generally seen in either the context of their parent category and the pages within them which should be sufficient which should make them fairly unambiguous; where does this end? (maybe ALL geographic categories should be disambiguated in their titles to avoid potential confusion ie Category:Gloucester and Category:Gloucester, Massachusetts. If nothing else the rule would be simpler, applied more consistently, and avoid all of this mess. It makes no sense to me to have different article and category names.)--Derek Andrews (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the nominator explicitly says there is no present need for a higher category for oil wells and water wells" I most certainly did not say that. Hesperian 01:39, 1 February 2009 (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:Creation myths[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: keep. Kbdank71 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Creation myths to Category:Creation accounts, Category:Creation stories, or some other more NPOV wording.
Nominator's rationale: Posting as category for discussion - needs more NPOV wording (which neither lists them as myth or fact). 2000 years from now Christian/Muslim/(other contemporary religions') fundamentalist creation stories may be viewed more universally the same as Greek/Roman mythology, but currently a sizable minority of humans still believe them as fact. Genesis, etc, may very well be myths but it is not Wikipedia's place (or NPOV) to describe or categorize them as such. Such categorization also implies a POV/anti-creationism bias in articles themselves. (Note: I am not a creationist, but this is an obvious POV naming (whether intended as such or not) here) Outsider80(talk) 09:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm pretty sure "myth" here is not being used in the sense of it meaning "a false belief". Isn't it being used in the scholarly sense of meaning "sacred narrative"? As myth says, "use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative." That said, the other pejorative meaning of the word is a reality. But I think "creation myth" is fairly widely used, is it not? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The category apparently was originally started by someone with interests in mesoamerican relgion, confirming WP:AGF that it was for the scholarly motives like you say. Unfortunately it also provides a venue/dumping ground to also place contemporary religions' creation stories into. Personally I believe Creationism is a myth, but per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Myth_and_legend, categorizing or labeling Creationism as myth isn't kosher here. I'm sure some editors will say "why not just move offending items (such as contemporary religions' stories) out of the category instead of renaming the category -- but that would just leave the problem to be able to repeat over and over again. Would be better imho to just find a name for the category that includes all religious creation accounts/stories, without using inflamatory words such as "myth". This way creationism, etc, are placed on same level as other religious creation stories (without using the perceived-POV wording of myth). At an atheists or freethinkers convention, labelling Creationism a "religious myth" would be non-controversial, but WP has many fundamentalist Chritsians (including scholars), and this type of categorization kind of smacks of the liberal version of Conservapedia tactics - and Wikipedia is better than this. (i.e. Conservapedia placing "Homosexuality" in their "Sin" category)(my 2 cents) Outsider80(talk) 10:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Creation myth is the standard, and hence neutral, term used throughout the literature. Ben (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "myth" is the correct technical term for these stories. Unfortunately, the term also has a popular perjorative sense, close to lie. Note: I believe in a creator God. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct it may be, but "myth" does have a pejorative meaning to many readers. Hesperian 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ben Tillman. It has nothing to do with "liberal" or not—"myth" is how these stories are classified and studied by scholars. Postdlf (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personally, I don't have a problem with using the term "myth" -- and I agree that "creation myth" is a standard, non-pejorative, scholarly term -- so I started off leaning in that direction. But I decided to do a little bit of empirical research (so to speak), and found that "creation myth" gets around 300k g-hits, and "creation story" gets around 400k g-hits. But I thought, well that probably reflects a built-in cultural bias toward references to the Biblical creation story, so I tried Google Scholar for comparison. But even there both terms are widely used, with "creation story" getting about 8,000 hits and "creation myth" about 7,000. An interesting note is that the Navajo creation myth/story seems to turn up with equal frequency under both terms. So my thinking has shifted toward using the term "creation story", since it does appear to be an accepted scholarly term on a par with "creation myth", and "story" doesn't carry the semantic baggage of the word "myth". Cgingold (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an effort to remove the Biblical bias likely in the results, I redid the ghits with "-Genesis" and got 254k for "creation myth" and 374k for "creation story"; but with "-Genesis -Christian -Jewish -Muslim -Islamic" "myth" beats "story" 195k to 185k, which to my mind indicates some cultural bias toward the Abrahamic religion's beliefs as less "myth[ical]" than others'. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The google scholar search with "-Genesis -Christian -Jewish -Muslim -Islamic" has "myth" beating "story" about 2500-1600 (or 1.5:1), FWIW. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: there is no POV implicit in "myth" in academic usage. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. This is not a new debate. This current category had been renamed from category:Origin beliefs following an earlier CfD discussion (here, to align it with the rename of the cat's main article from origin belief-->creation myth. This article rename stemmed from a consensus hammered out at the article's talk page (see the talkpg archives), and since then there is no demonstration that this consensus has changed. Procedurally, trying to rename the category is the wrong order to do it in- any attempts to rename should seek a revision of the consensus on the name of the cat's main article itself first; if any name change arises out of that then this category's renaming can follow. FWIW, I'd oppose rename anyway per others here: the formal meaning of the word "myth" in scholarship is unproblematic and non-perjorative; the fact that some readers & editors may be unaware of or misunderstand this standard usage should not mean wikipedia needs to cater for the interpretation with the lowest common denominator. --cjllw ʘ TALK 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above and the comments of others. My first impression has been confirmed by the other commenters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - I understand that academics can have an understanding that "myth" refers to a specific cultural story, but to the average man on the street logging onto Wikipedia, who is not an academic in the fields of cultural topics such as study of creation myths/stories/legends, "myth" carried a heavy meaning of a false belief. Example: In a grade school, kids could be taught without controversy that Zeus, etc. are mythical figures. -- but teaching Jesus as a mythical figure would be very controversial (in many areas). WP is not an enclopedia only directed at academics and scholars, but everyone. And if an average person sees it categorized as myth, it gives the impression that WP is liberally-biased, and that the article itself must also have an anti-creationism bias (even if the article is NPOV). I thought that at least in the naming of articles, WP weighed in colloquial/common usage (preferring common usage) - something similar wouldn't apply here? I don't really have anything personally invested here so I won't lose sleep over it not being renamed, but it seems to be a blatant (un-intended) POV violation that could hurt the encyclopedia here. Most WP readers are not academics/scholars/anthropological professors (my 2 cents) Outsider80(talk) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality is defined as objectively as possible at WP:NPOV. A subjective definition like it gives the impression that WP is liberally-biased would be a impossible to work with. Cheers, Ben (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be worth noting that another important word has a specific academic meaning but a different, pejorative common meaning. That word is 'theory'. The difference in meaning between theory in mathematics and the sciences, as a model of some aspect of reality, and theory in common usage, as an unproven fact, is key to the way Darwinists and creationists talk past each other. This double usage of 'myth' seems very analagous. Rklear (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Myth is NPOV and appropriate in this case. This is an encyclopedia - its purpose is to educate. If people do not know how anthopologists, scholars of comparative religion, historians, and othe pople who study creation myths, do not know what scholars man by "myth" in this context, well, let's just explain it to them, as an enecylopedia ought to. This is not just a mater of semantics: what maks something a myth is not its truth-value, but its social function. The whole point of the study of creation myths is that scholas are relatively uninterested in whether the myth really occured or not, they are interested in social functions. In order to educate our readers about creation myths, we need to get them to understand that there is a more interesting question than "did Zeus really do all those things." When they can understand this more interesting question, they will really learn something important about creation myths. Calling them anyting other than myths defeats the whole point. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:34, 29 January 2009 (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:French politicians of the 17th century[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) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:French politicians of the 17th century to Category:17th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 20th century to Category:20th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 18th century to Category:18th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 19th century to Category:19th-century French politicians
Category:French politicians of the 21st century to Category:21st-century French politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent and most similar categories list the century first and then the topic. If this one is approved the remaining categories in this tree will need to be nominated. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2009 (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:Union Theological Seminary alumni[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Union Theological Seminary alumni to Category:Union Theological Seminary (Virginia) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is intended for alumni of Union Theological Seminary & Presbyterian School of Christian Education in Richmond, Virginia. However, about half the current entries are about alumni of Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, which lacks a category of its own (some eligible articles may be listed under Category:Columbia University alumni). Renaming would end this confusion, and permit creation of an appropriate second category, Category:Union Theological Seminary (New York) alumni. Rklear (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Several Oxford and Cmabridge University colleges have alumni categories. I see no reason why the New York one should not too, even if some subjects may also be eligible for Colombia's. I suggest you create the second one and sort trhe articles. Of course we should only hace a category if it can be reasonably well populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I provincially assumed this had referred to the New York City institution. The names should reflect the locations of the parent schools or of the parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – in deference to accuracy. Occuli (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (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:Former pupils of the Royal School Dungannon[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. Deletion can be discussed after the rename is there is a strong opinion about this, however it may be best to do that as part of a larger nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former pupils of the Royal School Dungannon to Category:Alumni of the Royal School Dungannon or delete as non-defining
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Use "alumni" per similar WP categories and to avoid "former" vs. "current" issues. Or delete as non-defining. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if I am reading the article correctly, this appears to be a school that is below college-level education. I strongly believe that categories for where one went to grade school, junior high, high school, or their international equivalents and such are non-defining. Otto4711 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- In the UK Old boys networks have been prevalent, particularly in the case of (fee-paying) public schools. I am not sure how far we should allow this to extend to every high school, but I note this one has a small (but not negligible population. Certainly Otto4711's rule would be thoroughly inappropriate for Category:Old Etonians and Category:Old Westminsters. The question is where to draw the line. We usually allow articles on High Schools, but not primary schools. Note: we do not have grade schools in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- per nom and per convention in Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom (if 'Old Fooians' is not applicable). There is no precedent that I can recall for any deletions of sibling UK categories at cfd, despite many discussions. Occuli (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match standard used for other such schools. I agree that attendance at most non-tertiary schools is not defining, but that this is one of the schools for which it is. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_28&oldid=1142540257"