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; no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Presumably the category is not only meant for Protestant people but for all kind of Protestant topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Renaming isn't going to fix this ill-conceived category. Given the nature of its formation, essentially anything about Protestantism is going to be "controversial" from a Catholic point of view; within the movement divisions tend to form out of controversy and dispute. At any rate we have a willy-nilly mix of controversy with outside groups (which indeed includes Protestantism itself as a subcategory), intra-Protestant controversies, and movements that someone, somewhere, really didn't like (e.g. fundamentalism). There may be some way to salvage this with a completely different taxonomy, but "Protestant(ism)-related" is not a workable foundation. The very name suggests a lack of a clear organizing principle. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair suggestion to split inner-protestantism controversies from controversies between protestantism and outside groups. Taking that in mind, I don't think we do not have to delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, as it forms part of Category:Christianity-related controversies. Membership can be discussed on each article's talk page. Rename, as the corresponding categories for other branches of Christianity use the ending -ism. – FayenaticLondon 20:45, 12 July 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:Members of the Linnean Society of London[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.
Nominator's rationale: Correct title - the members of the Linnean Society are Fellows. DuncanHill (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, on the assumption that the above has always been the case. I see from http://www.linnean.org/fellows/become_a_fellow that membership also includes student associate/associate but, as the latter ends at age 28, I assume that only Fellowship would be WP:defining. – FayenaticLondon 20:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Some learned societies have members and fellows, fellow being higher. I suspect that those who are only members will be NN. I have not checked the contents, but suspect that in practice the nom will serve. Nevertheless, is a fellowship of the Linnean Society sufficiently defining to warrant us have a category? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one does not have members and fellows; it has student associates, associates and fellows (all of which are members). I've added a citation (from the article H. H. Bloomer Award) which independently supports the Society's "premier" ranking. – FayenaticLondon 13:22, 8 August 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.
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: Smallcat, the category contains only one article and this article applies to the United Kingdom and Ireland together. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 9 July 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.
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:reverse merge i.e. put the Neopaganism category into the head categories of its parent. – FayenaticLondon 13:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge since Paganism in Sweden only consists of child category Neopaganism in Sweden.
Note on the side, it would also be fine to keep the name Neopaganism in Sweden, so to rename Paganism in Sweden into Neopaganism in Sweden. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge So we keep the category name that best reflects the contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 10 July 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 by ethnic or national origin[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. – FayenaticLondon 13:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the description of the category says, and as the names of the subcategories imply: This category classifies primarily by country and in subsequent subcats by ethnic or nation descent. Why don't i rename to "People by nationality and ethnic or national descent"? Because the subcats include immigrants and expatriates, and they dont have the citizenship of the country, they only reside there, hence "country of residence". The second reason for me: If i read the names of these two categories Category:People by ethnic or national origin and Category:People by ethnic or national descent, i cannot see the difference, unless i take a look at the subcategories. These two cats sound exactly the same to me. But after renaming it becomes clear, that People by country of residence and ethnic or national descent is really a subcat to Category:People by ethnic or national descent. The subcats in People by ethnic or national origin, that classify by continent or region can equally well stand in Category:People by ethnic or national descent. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC) <br\> The names of the following two categories sound - to me as non native speaker - very similar: Category:People by ethnic or national origin and Category:People by ethnic or national descent. I personally dont feel that there is a difference at all between these two words. But the initial reason, why i want this rename is, because i am convinced that Category:People by ethnic or national origin aka Category:People by nationality and ethnic or national descent is really a subcategory to Category:People by ethnic or national descent. In order to justify that, I "require" this title change. I translate the part of the description of Category:People by ethnic or national origin that says "...lists people according to country (or similar geopolitical entity) of their citizenship and their ethnicity or national origin ..." to "lists people by nationality and ethnic or national descent". And indeed, the category specifies the attribute "nationality" and leaves the attribute "ethnic or national descent (or if you like: origin)" undecided for the subcats. Now compare it to Category:People by ethnic or national descent, there is only one key, namely the ethnic or national origin (or descent). I believe it is an overcat to the one, that adds another key: nationality. I have to add that i am not knowledgeable about the topic, i only have an issue with the hierarchy of these two categories - hence the name change. This is why i cannot really incorporate your ideas into my proposal but you can do if u want. My proposal is nullified if you decide that "ethnic or national origin" is different from "ethnic or national descent" and hence the one cat cannot be subcat to the other. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Support rename - except is it really necessary to keep 'ethnic or' in the category name? It becomes quite a complicated category name when keeping that. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
do not change The current category name is clear and is descriptive of the contents of the category. There is no outstanding reason to make this name more complicated, cumbersome and confusing. Hmains (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Hmains. TITLE is very clear about "conciseness" and "precision". The addition of extra words will not clarify or specify this category anymore than it already is, per normal (not picky) English usage. "National descent" is also an invented term that looks second-language-user-invented; we do use "nationality" in North America, meaning ethnic origin, but that was avoided here to start with as having multiple meanings/contexts. "National origin" is taken to mean not necessarily from a "nation state" but e.g. re indigenous peoples of their "nation" in the tribal/communal/familial sense; There is no reason to muddy the waters with unfamiliar terms, or too many terms. "By country of residence" is a catch-all can of worms, also, and has too many consequences/possibilities to list/explore here. It's fine as it is.Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have some redundancy, and some things in the one cat that should be in the other, or better subcatted by grouping; as per e.g. indigenous North American descent for various ones, including some in Category:People by historical ethnicity, which I remember seeing before and something similar, Category:Ancient origins or Category:Ancient ethnicities or something "ancient"...."historical ethnicity" to me isn't a workable term, whether for Category:Ancient Egyptians or the more-recently-expired Category:Beothuk people...I'll have to think about your request, I take it on the one that doesn't have the CfD on it you must be referring to the talkpage? I'll look tomorrow, it's midnight here.Skookum1 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- All subcats are in the form of the presnet title. There have been many attempts to try to9 get soemthing more precise, but life is too complicaterd for everyone to go neatly into a box. A fooian person who emigrates to booia ill be of fooian origin, even if naturiused as a booian. His children will be booian people of fooian descent: this is the purpose of the descent categories. Adding anything about residence is just messing things up. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair opinion about the first rationale mentioned by nominator, what about the second rationale? (I myself find the second rationale the more convincing argument for supporting the nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Category:People by nationality and ethnic or national descent to follow format of children "Fooian people by ethnic or national origin". I would also argue that we should attempt to divide up the ethnic/national origin trees into "ethnic origin" and "national origin" if possible. Is "descent of national origin" even a defining characteristic when you strip out the ethnic element? Essentially these categories mean "had a parent/grandparent who was of that nationality but was not of that ethnicity". I don't see how "people whose fathers lived in X" is a useful category. SFB 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal changed in order to meet the answers, withdraw unnecessary parts and better define core concern. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obviously this will not fly Comments above were made about the original proposal, not this one. Hmains (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it has become clear that not everyone understood the rationale right away, and the rationale has been clarified now, would it be permitted to close this discussion and to post this rename proposal again by today? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brought the first version of the rationale back and scratched it, everything should be clear now. I don't think it is too confusing really. Or do you say that too much time has passed since the first version and now no one will come to read the second version? In that case there's no question if i make the proposal again, but WHEN. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too much time has passed since the first version and now no one will come to read the second version - exactly. About the when, I'd say if possible by today, except I don't know how Wikipedia procedures and etiquette works in a case like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing you can't ask that someone close a discussion "today" simply because you and the nom agree on whatever; by the look of Hmains' latest response, he will oppose any retitled rename for the same reasons as he does here. As would I. If you are not a non-native language speaker, the distinction between "national origin" and "national descent" isn't clear to you, then you shouldn't have presumed to nominate this at all.Skookum1 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum1, please tell me about this difference, I am really trying to understand. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
>>> RELISTING PROPOSAL AT JULY 18th <<< Hey, I made a second proposal at July 18th, with a very very clear rationale this time. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 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.
