Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 4

< October 3	October 5 >

October 4[edit]

Category:Members of the Cistercian Order by nationality[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. I note that this also matches the parent category Category:Cistercians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Cistercian Order by nationality to Category:Cistercians by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Why use five words whn one will do? cf Category:Benedictines by nationality. Jsmith1000 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 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.

Survey regarding Category:Bishops[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: administrative close: no additional comments for over a month. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an official nomination, I'd rather first find out what you think of it. The issue is the following. Currently the far majority of final rungs in the Bishops category have the format of Denominational bishops of diocese. So the final rungs are based on two characteristics, denomination and diocese. However, at the top level they come from three branches of the Bishops tree, namely:

Category:Bishops by diocese
Category:Bishops by country (and also Category:Bishops by continent which quickly dissolves in the country branch)
Category:Bishops by denomination

Between top level and final rungs there are a large number of container categories which are all possible crossings of these three main branches. Since the final rungs have only two characteristics, I would expect that one of the three branches is redundant.

In addition, please note that both diocese and country are both geographical characteristics. Rather than have 'by diocese' crossed with the countries and denominations, it makes more sense to have the separate dioceses simply as the next geographical layer after country. In other words, I think that the whole 'by diocese' branch is redundant and that all 'by diocese' container categories can be upmerged to the category with the same name however without 'by diocese'.

Note, for a full overview of the 'by diocese' categories, see Category:Categories by diocese.

Please provide me with your thoughts about this before I would (perhaps unnecessarily) start tagging dozens of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I certainly agree with your last thought... I think it would help if you would clarify what you're suggesting with a couple of examples. My preliminary reaction is that the most informative feature, in cat terms, of a bishop is his diocese, as all information on country and denomination can be held in the cat tree of the diocese, without having all to be repeated in that of the bishop, so the diocesan tree is the one that needs to be kept, but I'm not sure I understand your proposal. Is there some confusion perhaps between (e.g.) "a bishop in France" (i.e, in a French diocese) and "a French bishop" (i.e., of French nationality but not necessarily in a French diocese)? Jsmith1000 (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I admit that there's also nationality involved in another part of the tree but that's really entirely independent from the above.

Example, let's take Category:Bishops of Liverpool (Roman Catholic) as the final rung. If ignoring a specialty in England (a split between pre- and post-reformation bishops) then you can get there now via the four following routes:

Country branch: Bishops by country - Bishops in England - RC bishops in England - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
Denomination branch: Bishops by denomination - RC bishops - RC bishops by country - RC bishops in England - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
Diocese x denomination branch: Bishops by diocese - RC bishops by diocese - RC bishops in Europe by diocese - RC bishops in UK by diocese - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool
Diocese x country branch: Bishops by diocese - European bishops by diocese - UK bishops by diocese - RC bishops in UK by diocese - RC bishops in England by diocese - RC bishops in Liverpool

Note that all categories mentioned, except for the final rung, are container categories! (except maybe for some incidentally 'lost' single articles, so on behalf of those lost articles I would rather propose an upmerge instead of a delete)

So there's four routes. However, the final rung is defined based on two characteristics, hence you only need two routes as well. The latter two routes are redundant, and in the first two routes you wouldn't necessarily need RC bishops in England by diocese as an in-between layer.

Hope this makes it a bit clearer! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's broken here? Is this a solution in search or a problem? As far as I can see, they're just navigation aids. I see nothing wrong with any of the schemes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for laying it out more clearly. It seems to me however that all this categorisation is necessary, to allow for the fact that the different starting points - country, denomination, diocese - are equally valid and that enquirers need to be able to work down from any of them by any route to get to the bottom layer of actual bishops. So although I understand how it may look like over-categorisation, I think it's OK.Jsmith1000 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have looked around the hierarchy and think I have figured this out. Your suggestions point to the "by diocese" layer being unnecessary, so we could merge/rename everything with "by diocese" to the version without those words. There are a lot of them, see Category:Categories by diocese. That seems to be a fair idea. However, the point of "by diocese" is to make it clear that these are container categories, and no articles should go in them directly. Renaming would lose this benefit. I'm undecided on the merits. There are probably better things to spend our time on, though. – Fayenatic London 18:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I consider the most important factor to be denomination. I feel strongly enough about that that I think all biography articles should be directly in a Bishop category that doesn't include denomination. (Container categories without denomination are fine.) Also, in general, I think the Diocese categories are over-used and, as a result, under-populated. I know those 2 thoughts don't amount to creating a new hierarchy but I hope it's useful for seeing where I'm coming from on these nominations. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all very much for your reactions. I've decided not to pursue this. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The present structure works fairly well. The lowest level should reflect the actual title used with a denominational prefix in cases of ambiguity (only). Above this the structure should be by province or country, probably reflecting the structure adopted by the church in question, thus the Anglican Diocese in Europe ought to be directly in the continental category. Whether we need a separate diocesan level will depend on whether we have significant content on the diocese as distinct from its bishop. IN some cases, we may get two parallel routes from the general to the specific. Does that matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 13 October 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:Time Quartet[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) 02:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Time Quartet to Category:Time Quintet

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Time Quintet. Not eligible for speedy renaming as I only just shortened the main article name from A Wrinkle in Time Quintet. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support so as to match main article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-esque Support per above. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 6 October 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:American politicians‎[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: do not rename. I also note that the category was not tagged with Template:Cfr during this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American politicians‎ to Category:United States politicians‎

Nominator's rationale: This is proposed so as to better satisfy WP:AT: "The title indicates what the article is about", and also in view that the main article is entitled United States and it is just one of many countries that constitute The Americas.

The text within Category:American politicians‎ reads: "This category lists politicians who are associated with the United States through nationality. Most, but not all, have been involved in the politics of the United States. For individuals who have held office in the political institutions of the U.S. (regardless of nationality), refer to Category:Political office-holders in the United States". America or American is not mentioned. Reference is also made that: "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Politicians of the United States. - WP:CRITERIA Consistency also applies.

I will place a link from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics to this proposal due to its far reaching implications. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there English speaking areas where "American" is not understood to mean people from the United States? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I am mainly working on the basis that "United States" is a more specific terminology while "American" terminologies come from a shared source. People may look, for instance, at an atlas they find that the titles written in the largest type size relate to North and South America and there find a country typically named the "United States". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified English Wikipedia uses a limited range of words so that new/emerging English speakers can follow the articles more easily and improve their skills. If someone is just coming into the English language, that is a good resource at least initially until they gain greater English fluency. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Just to clarify – is your proposal to change Category:Politicians by nationality into Category:Politicians by country? SFB 11:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No and good point. However I don't personally think that this constitutes a requirement to use Category:American politicians‎ to any greater extent than it requires the use of Category:New Zealander politicians‎. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per reasoning as I think this move pushes the category outside the nationality scope (i.e. "United States" refers to a country, not a nationality). I actually think reorganising this tree on a country basis (rather than nationality of the politician) is a superior choice (see Category:Monegasque politicians which contains mostly French nationals). I would support that. SFB 19:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question (Actually this is the same question as below in the Baptist ministers nomination.) Do I understand correctly that you propose to use United States as an adjective of the noun United States? To what extent is this common language? I'm also asking in order to understand the risk that editors may see this as a country category while it's intended as a nationality category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that a grammatically interested reader could decide for themselves whether they want to read the reference as an adjective or a noun. Either way it is a commonly used format as appearing in articles such as: United States Navy, United States Army, United States men's national soccer team, United States Census Bureau, United States Air Force, United States dollar, United States Congress, United States Armed Forces, and presumably many others.

As mentioned it is also a format that parallels the likes of: Category:New Zealand politicians‎

In these contexts do you interpret United States as an adjective?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative results beginning "American" are (as appearing):

American football, American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, American League, American Airlines, American Broadcasting Company, American University, American Idol, American literature, American Hockey League, American Jews, (pasted in square brackets and continued to cut and paste items from the search until brackets were filled). My view is that politicians fit in best with the "United States ..." format Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Legitimate use of common meaning of "American". If people want to nitpick, there is ambiguity for any category name along these lines (I could claim that Category:German politicians could potentially cover anyone who is ethnically German, including Austrians and South Tyroleans). However, I don't think that would be very reasonable. With regards to all the examples quoted above using United States, some are official names (e.g. United States Census Bureau) and others are Wikipedia-specific formulaic names (e.g. United States national soccer team), neither of which apply here. The New Zealand example is not applicable here because there is no proper demonym for NZ (New Zealander and Kiwi refer specifically to people, it's the equivalent of "Briton" for British people), and why we have Category:New Zealand society as opposed to (e.g.) Category:British society. Number 5 7 21:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number and what about consistency? Wikipedia articles on politics refer predominently to the United States. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is important, which is why this category should match all the others in Category:Politicians by nationality. Number 5 7 11:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"all"?

Category:Government in the United States is another container category for Category:American politicians. In Category:Government in the United States you will find many other related "United States" titled categories and articles. Article titles that you will find include: Federal government of the United States, United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, United States Domestic Policy Council, United States federal executive departments and President of the United States. There are a great many similarly titled articles here and further leads may also be found through Portal:Government of the United States. "United States politicians" seek office in the United States. All governmental references that I have seen use the wording "United States". Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want to nitpick, "the vast, vast majority". Exceptions like "Politicians from Georgia (country)" are due to there being a clear potential for confusion with Georgia (state). Again, I go back to the issue of reasonableness. I also don't understand why you've just listed all those articles; the same is true for the articles in Category:Government of the United Kingdom and its sub cats (e.g. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), yet they quite happily sit alongside Category:British politicians. Number 5 7 17:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have read the thread and are familiar with contents presented.

To better represent the United Kingdom and the Politics of the United Kingdom in its connection to the Government of the United Kingdom, I would suggest the use of something like Category:United Kingdom politicians or Category:UK politicians, but that's a different topic. I have already mentioned this in the discussion re:Category:Baptist ministers from the United States‎‎‎ below.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side point it may also be worth noting that the preferred reference of enemies of the United States is "America". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support we should migrate all countries to "countryname" instead of "demonym" as demonyms are highly ambiguous in many cases conflicting with ethnic and linguistic groups, as well as multiple countries sharing the same demonym -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as constituted. I recognize that the demonym "American" is ambiguous enough to some people that I might be willing to consider supporting a comprehensive decision to rename all US-related categories in a "United States" format instead, but as long as this is a subcategory of Category:American people by occupation, sitting alongside dozens of other occupational categories that are using "American", then it's not appropriate for this particular category to be a unique outlier that isn't compliant with the existing naming conventions for its own parent tree. Further, the idea that we should comprehensively rename all comparable categories to a format that uses the country name instead of the adjectival demonym is also far outside the scope of this discussion. By all means, feel free to propose a comprehensive consensus change to move in that direction, in the proper venue for that kind of proposal — but a single-category nomination is not the place to establish a new consensus that would be automatically binding on any other category whose users haven't been notified of the proposal. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing it to United States carries the implication that all these folks were politicians at the national or federal level, whereas American as a demonym is inclusive of state, local, etc. politicians. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 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:Windmills in Anglesey[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: merge as nominated to both categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Dual Upmerge of Category:Windmills in Anglesey to Category:Windmills in Wales and Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey.

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. There are only 4 articles about Windmills in all of Wales and this splits out 2 of them out for an island/county in Wales. There is definitely room for growth with new articles so no objection to recreating this later if needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills. – RevelationDirect (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Support merge of Category:Windmills in Anglesey to Category:Windmills in Wales

Oppose merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey. This is best left as a stand alone subsection of Category:Buildings and structures in Wales by county Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Gregkaye, you may have misunderstood the proposal: Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey will remain, but should have these windmills in it. The nomination is a merge to that category, not a merge of it. – Fayenatic London 15:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic I would have thought that Category:Windmills in Anglesey could either merge with Category:Windmills in Wales OR it can merge with Category:Buildings and structures in Anglesey. I don't see how it can do both. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's simple enough, although it has to be done manually (i.e. not automated using a bot) - someone puts the contents of the category into both of its parents. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the problem with a category is that it creates an overly narrow intersection, a dual upmerge is usually the fix. I'll see if I can find some better examples to put up at WP:NARROWCAT to make this clearer since the only sample there (Category:Pre-1933 two-digit Virginia state highways) is more WP:ARBITRARYCAT.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- Such multiple upmerges are not an uncommon outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 13 October 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:Church[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: no consensus. Given the nature of the discussion and the way things changed in the midst of it, I suggest a renomination and a fresh discussion. I might also suggest that a disambiguation category could be more appropriate here than a regular parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important note The contents of the category has completely changed since October 5. If you have commented before this change, please consider commenting again. If you haven't commented before, please ignore the first part of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It only contains a disambiguation page and the child Category:Church buildings so it seems like this is a redundant categorization layer. The child category is already parented to Christian buildings as well, so there's nothing lost in the tree structure when deleting the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename of Category:Church buildings to Category:Church (building), then delete this. This will allow the primary article, Church (building), to sit better in a broader category, which should also contain Category:Church architecture (currently this is a parent of the main Church category, which is tautological). Semantically, the topic is more inclusive than just buildings – we could (and should) have an article on church culture (behaviour and tradition within the building itself), which the new title would allow inclusion of. SFB 11:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree on deleting this one as nominated, it may be better to post a separate nomination for Church buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not consider a nonexistent article as a reason to change the category tree. We sure don't need an article on "church culture". tahc ^chat 15:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We already have Christian worship, Category:Christian worship and Category:Christian worship practices. Even though some say "worship is all of life, not just what goes on in church", that is the general usage of the word. – Fayenatic London 15:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The assessment that church culture is not worth an article is pretty ignorant to say the least. SFB 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Not convinced of the merits of SFB's additional proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Manual deletion ensuring that the contents are not lost from appropriate parents within Category:Christianity. The topic of "Church" is hard to distinguish from Christianity as a whole (seen not in individualistic terms but as the corporate life of the body of Christ, following the New Commandment). The person implementing this (I am willing to do so) could resolve circular categorisation at the same time, e.g. buildings/architecture as mentioned above. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start of new discussion

Comment The "Nominator's rationale" is flawed-- it only has infomation on what was in the category at that time. This has been impoved (and changed), so none of the "rationale" is based on real infomation. Maybe the nominator can withdraw the proposal and resubmit a proposal based on the current contents. Adding a updated proposal now will not help people who have left "votes" already. tahc ^chat 15:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems like multiple different meanings of "church" are now merged into one category based on the commonality of the word "church". Personally I doubt if that is really a good idea. But other people who reacted before are of course entirely free to change their mind based on this new development. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple solution to this issue would be to use a disambiguation handle to clarify what we mean by "Church" in this context, but rubbishing that opinion and deleting everything is obviously the way to collaboratively build our knowledge (?!). SFB 17:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the new contents recognise that the word is ambiguous, the thing to do would be to empty he category and turn it into a category disambiguation page. See {{category disambiguation}} if you have not come across these before. Ambiguous words should not form part of any hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's interesting! So a page like that could refer to Category:Church buildings, Category:Christian communities etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is very poor form for a category to be substantially altered out of process. Once the CFD has started, no material changes, designed to defeat the proposal, should take place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Category:Church" WP:SHAREDNAME overcategorization. Church is a disambiguation page. Therefore this category is highly ambiguous and cannot be used as a category name. "church" is a religious institution, place of worship, or group of worshipers, so completely separate uses (location, group, institution) and doesn't have to be Christian either. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to a possible rename for group of worshippers. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it was unused until 5 October, we just roll back to the prior situation, and delete this category. No renaming necessary. The current contents violated WP:SHAREDNAME anyways. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't know what was originally in this category, but what's there now falls outside of buildings. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By nominator (just in case it wasn't clear yet): in the new situation I'm in favor of emptying the category and creating a category disambiguation page, by arguments of Fayenatic london and 65.94.171.225. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that more clear. tahc ^chat 02:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Church is currently covering the ideas of church buildings, local churches, larger church bodies, and the whole Church. These things are related but distinct ideas-- and all are called "church" as a noun. Overcategorization -- unrelated subjects with shared names-- is if we add unrelated things like Church music, Church covenant, Church maintenance, and Church etiquette to Category:Church. tahc ^chat 02:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that church buildings and denominations are any closer related than denominations and church music. This becomes arbitrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that church buildings and local churches organizations are quite different... but an articles on them-- St. Frank's Baptist Church tend to be about both the buildings and the organization. tahc ^chat 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this church article is redlinked so I can't check it. Generally I would expect that it won't occur too often that both building and community are a defining characteristic of a church article. I would rather expect an article about a community which also covers the building or vice versa. But if it happens that they're both a defining characteristic, I wouldn't mind having this church article in the both categories of buildings and communities. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Experience suggests otherwise. For the vast majority of churches, the building is foremost a gathering point of a congregation – that community is the only reason for its continued existence as a church. SFB 19:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes typicaly only one of the two is "noteworthy" of the article... but once there is the article there, it will cover both if at all possible. This not always obvious, but since the building and community share the one name, the location, etc., they are (99% of the time) quite relivant to each other. (BTW St. Frank's Baptist is hypothtical.) tahc ^chat 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Covering both aspects is something else than that both are a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The concept is a fuzzy one, with varying uses, but the same origin. Most local churches meet in a church building owned by or for them. It is also used at a higher level for denominations and Christendom in general. I see not problem with doing this for a high level category, like this. I would expect it mainly to be a container category, but with a few general articles on the concept generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Peterkingiron. tahc ^chat 20:24, 13 October 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:Baptist ministers from the United States‎‎‎[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) 01:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baptist ministers from the United States‎ to Category:American Baptist ministers‎

Nominator's rationale: Naming aligned with other categories within Category:American Christian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per WP:C2C, clear category naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and propose: Category:United States‎ Baptist ministers as a parallel to: Category:New Zealand Baptist ministers. The United States only constitutes one of the many countries in the Americas. The proposed titles inadequately achieves WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about". Curiously WP:C2C mentions Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: would you then propose renaming all "American" categories in which American is meant as an adjective of United States? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most. The main article is the United States and this should the gravity of WP:UCRN and WP:CRITERIA, consistency. However, there are also individual articles to which WP:UCRN may give a stronger argument for the use of "American" in the title. I have just written a proposal to move Category:American politicians to Category:United States politicians in which rationales are presented more fully and plan to make a similar proposal on different grounds related to a move of Category:British politicians to Category:United Kingdom politicians

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to think about it yet. What about WP:COMMONNAME, in the sense that 'everyone' uses American as adjective of United States and British as adjective of United Kingdom? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"United States" is the common name of the country also in accepted use in Wikipedia. "American" is widely used as suggested by the following searches (sorry for the presentation of hits data):

"American people" gets "About 20,800,000 results"
"US citizen" OR "United States citizen" gets "About 11,700,000 results"
"American citizen" gets "About 4,920,000 results"

"American" is prevalent but I still has a potential problem of having a shared source. The use of the country's is less ambiguous. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The proportion of English-speaking people likely to construe the American categories for People of the Americas is imaginary. The real ambiguity here is whether Category:American Baptist ministers‎ means American Baptist ministers or American Baptist ministers. The category is best left where it is. SFB 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see! And just to be sure, don't you feel for Category:United States‎ Baptist ministers? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It maintains the clarity of the current one, but I find it a very unidiomatic phrase. Google produces maybe just four unique instances of it on the internet[1]. SFB 00:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, see the talk page for two precedent discussions that were unanimous, because of the ambiguity over a specific grouping American Baptist Churches USA who are commonly known as "American Baptists". As for the form of the unambiguous phrase, there are precedents for using the pattern "Bar from Foo" where "Fooian Bar" is not preferred, e.g. within Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. – Fayenatic London 14:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fayenatic london. tahc ^chat 15:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 5 October 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:International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights Members[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) 02:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights Members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We normally categorize organizations by type of organization (e.g. in Category:Gun rights advocacy groups) rather than by what other organizations they are affiliated to. Otherwise it would lead to some articles being in many categories for WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics (note: several of the articles in ths category don't currently mention the IAPCAR except in a see-also list). If kept, this should be renamed to "...members" or to "Members of...".

For info: the list at International_Association_for_the_Protection_of_Civilian_Arms_Rights#Member_Organizations is much more comprehensive than the category. Lists also have the advantage that a note can be added if an organization de-affiliates. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These organizations are already under the Category:Gun rights advocacy groups tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This idea is sufficiently organised in the advocacy group and advocates categories. The distinction between the members and the general concept are not enough to merit a category. SFB 13:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I created it, hearing the arguments I think that it should be deleted too. SantiLak (talk) 18:27, 4 October 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:SVG logos associated with health care[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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:SVG logos associated with health care to Category:Logos associated with health care

Nominator's rationale: This is the only "SVG <images> associated with <topic>" category in en wp. Afaik its the only "<format> <images> associated with <topic>" category in en wp. If the parent category ever becomes too big then it can be diffused by sub-topic (e.g. "Health care logos of the United States"). DexDor (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This subdivision is not required as the small parent better fulfils this function on its own. The other potential parent Category:SVG logos may be a valid target for creation, but we don't even have an "Images by format" tree yet. SFB 11:41, 4 October 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:FOX animated universe[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) 02:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:FOX animated universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criteria, likely redundant of existing categories. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely made up term. Article is original research, at best. Also previously deleted at FOX Animated Universe. Nymf (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NEOLOGISM '''tAD''' (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a concise breakdown of FOX's animation programs. Mikepellerin (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. No real world notability demonstrated for this idea. As for the "concise breakdown of FOX's animation programs", it is incomplete, and this in-universe treatment would not be the way to do it. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a creation to co-exist with the also WP:NEOLOGISM FOX animated universe, both of which were created by a sock (now blocked) of User:TreCoolGuy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 9 October 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:Balinese politicians[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Balinese politicians to Category:Politicians from Bali

Nominator's rationale: This category is for politicians in Bali and should be clarified that this doesn't relate specifically to Balinese people. SFB 00:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominations per below comment

Propose renaming Category:Aceh politicians to Category:Politicians from Aceh
Propose renaming Category:Banten politicians to Category:Politicians from Banten
Propose renaming Category:Central Java politicians to Category:Politicians from Central Java
Propose renaming Category:Jakarta politicians to Category:Politicians from Jakarta
Propose renaming Category:West Java politicians to Category:Politicians from West Java

Comment - probably more important is consistency = so politicians from other areas of Indonesia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indonesian_politicians_by_province need to be put up as well.... satusuro 03:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SatuSuro: nomination now expanded as these categories are children of the "People from X" tree. SFB 11:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the 'from' qualifier seems sensible satusuro 14:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but suggest Category:Politicians (Aceh), Category:Politicians (Banten),Category:Politicians (Central Java), Category:Politicians (Jakarta) and Category:Politicians (West Java). It is possible, in many places, for a person to have or adopt nationality even if they are born and maybe have lived and matured elsewhere.

Note: this is a similar theme to the request for use of Category:United States politicians‎ which could also be worded: Category:Politicians from the ‎United States or Category:Politicians (United States). Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but the wording should be "Politicians in State" rather than from. Unlike some other occupational categories which are subdivided by state, in the specific case of politicians what's relevant is not necessarily where they're "from" but rather the places in which their careers as politicians took place. For example, a politician born in Aceh who moved to the United States and became notable as a politician in California, not in Aceh, would technically belong in "from Aceh" — but because his political career didn't take place in Aceh, he's actually irrelevant to that context. So the category should be "in" rather than "from", because what's relevant in this particular place-occupation intersection is the jurisdiction in which the person's career in politics was actually undertaken, not necessarily the place they were born. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. In my country, a politician from Yorkshire may live in London and represent a constutitency in Worcestershire. I do not think we should get hung up over immigrant politicians. I would prefer "from", as a representative of Bali is not necessarily "in" Bali. There may be a case for an ethnic distinction in that case, because Bali is largely Hindu, whereas most other islands are largely Muslim. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 13 October 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.