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: I can't find any other religious-conversion categories or articles that use "from old to new". (See the subcategories of Category:Converts to Hinduism, Category:Converts from Judaism, Category:Converts to Islam, and Category:Converts from Christianity; everything with old and new religions is "to X from Y", not "from X to Y".) The current format seems to make more sense, since it's chronological, but nobody benefits if one category is out of step with the rest for no apparent reason. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support To match the other categories. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge (or reverse merge). Confusingly the previous discussion concerned a rename nomination while it should have been a merge nomination. The confusing nomination may well have contributed to a lack of consensus in that discussion. By this new nomination a clear merge (or reverse merge) is proposed. The rationale is obvious: the two categories serve the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split the difference Interesting categories. Denomination is POV. Schism is also POV. "Independent EO Churches" is the best and most neutral name but isn't in either merge proposal. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These two are not the same thing. Place Clichy (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction like this is a lot clearer. However, I wonder whether any church bodies should be included in the second category at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy: Do you have any further comment here? Why not simply 'movements' for the second category? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: looking further, I realized there is a top article for these "movements", which is Spiritual Christianity. Most of these belong to the description given there: non-Orthodox indigenous to the Russian Empire that emerged from among the Orthodox, and from the BezpopovtsyRaskolniks. Origins may be due to Protestant movements imported to Russia by missionaries, mixed with folk traditions, resulting in tribes of believers collectively called sektanty (sects). Just to be clear, the Protestant reference cannot in any way be understood as a link to Protestantism, but just that these groups reject such or such aspect of the teaching of their original mother church, the Russian Orthodox Church. I suggest moving this group to a new Category:Spiritual Christianity per C2D, and keep the original name Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies for the remainder of the merge category. The new Spiritual Christianity category should be parented to, for instance, Category:Christian movements, in addition to the current Category:Russian Orthodoxy and the renamed Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies. Place Clichy (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both subcategories and half of the articles can be classified under Spiritual Christianity, but the other half of the articles can't. Having said that, there is admittedly an issue in the sense that a number of these (movements?) (sects?) can't be regarded as Eastern Orthodox either. Perhaps most of them should simply be put in Category:Christianity in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Category:Mathematical objects is a category that Jamgoodman adds currently to many mathematical articles. This category that has never been discussed in WT:WPM. This category is totally useless, as almost all mathematical articles should belong to this category. The only exceptions that I am thinking of are articles about mathematicians and articles about areas of mathematics. On the other hand, theorems, proofs, mathematical theories, algorithms are mathematical objects, as mathematicians study them as mathematical object, and prove theorems involving them. Thus this category, duplicates essentially Category:Mathematics, and must be deleted. D.Lazard (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is a natural high-level subdivision of articles about mathematics: as you note, it can be separated right away from "areas of matheamtics" and "mathematicians". Deletion of a sensible category is not a good response to one user being over-aggressive in adding it, particularly since that issue has been sorted out (per discussion on my talk page). --JBL (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A mathematical object, as a philosophical concept, has played a core role in logic and philosophy of mathematics for a long time. See for instance, the SEP entry philosophy-mathematics. So I see this category as a very reasonable part of the (perhaps upper) ontology of philosophy and mathematics, as a subcat of Category:Objects. Keeping the category clean of informal interpretations of 'object' is the usual sort of maintenance we have to do for categories and should not be a reason for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Added: One way to ease the maintenance burden might be to narrow the scope of the cat to something like Category:Mathematical objects (philosophy). --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait, wait, theorems and algorithms are objects?? I tend to view stuff like sets and functions as mathematical objects while statements on them are not objects (unless we are doing categorical logic or of a sort so propositions are objects...) -- Taku (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question@TakuyaMurata: How do you mean? Where in this category do you see theorems and algorithms? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I was referring to the comment by the nominator "theorems, proofs, mathematical theories, algorithms are mathematical objects". Clearly?, theorems don't belong to the category "mathematical objects" or any of its subcategories, if mathematics is viewed in the ordinary way. (Again, I admit it's possible to approach math in such a way theorems are also objects to study, but I don't think that's what concerns us here.) -- Taku (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok so you disagree with the nomination rationale. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, unrelated intersection between ethnicity and personal wealth. We do not have a Category:Jewish billionaires either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The concept of a snap election is of course an established topic of academic research, but it is inherently subjective. In countries which do not have fixed terms parliaments, an election usually can be called at any time by the incumbent head of government, who usually chooses a moment in advance of the limit. The "unexpectedness" of that decision is an infinitely-variable quantity capable of many varying assessments, which makes a very poor basis for a category. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom, this is too subjective a topic to be a category. Number57 09:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't a snap election any election that is called before the limit is completed? For example, under the Septennial Act 1716, all GB/UK Parliaments could last up to seven years; wouldn't it be appropriate to use "snap election" for every election that happened less than seven years after the previous? Unless I'm missing something, it should be easy to determine which elections in the UK, at least, are snap elections. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the rationale very well either. If I would argue for deletion of this category it would probably be per WP:NONDEF, since snap elections happen mostly in countries in which the occurrence of snap elections is a regular element of the country's political system. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because many elections are held earlier than the last possible date to do so. For instance, elections were held in the UK in 1983, 1987, 2001 and 2005 all a year ahead of the parliamentary term ending, but aren't really seen as snap elections. However, the sudden and unexpected calling of the 2017 elections well ahead of schedule meant they are considered as such. Number57 11:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is indeed a lot of uncertainty what can be called a snap election. In New Zealand, there appears to be agreement which of the general elections can be regarded as snap elections. That clarity may not exist elsewhere. Either way, it would be way more helpful to have articles "List of snap elections in foo" that can outline consensus and discuss uncertainties than have a category that tries to deal with it. Schwede66 18:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elections are not defined by whether they were "snap" or not. Snap elections are not conducted any differently than non-snap elections, nor are the results treated any differently, and a "snap" election can really only happen in a jurisdiction that doesn't actually have fixed election dates in the first place (or, as in Canada, has fixed election dates in theory but still leaves an escape hatch for situations like minority governments losing confidence motions) — so "snapness" is not a useful point of commonality between different elections that would turn them into a unified group, because literally the only thing it changes is the election date itself. Elections simply are not defined by how much time has or hasn't passed since the previous one. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT with one entry; the eponymous article does not exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find another article that fit the cat. But yes, it is still a smallcat and not likely to grow. Hence deletion is reasonable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
