Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 23 April 2007 (→‎Category:History of Kurdistan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 22 April 24 >

April 23

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Bryce userboxes

Category:Bryce userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be created specifically to categorize userboxes having to do with Bryce (software). Looks to be the only category of its kind, and with only one template in the category, seems extremely unnecessary. VegaDark 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions

Category:Kurdish inhabited regions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no other example of this kind of categorization. Falls under WP:OC#Arbitrary inclusion criterion and WP:OC#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Also as per Category:Hispanic inhabited regions deletion (Nomination). -- Cat chi? 21:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category has survived 4 CfDs (1, 2, 3, 4), the last two by the same nominator. Results were "no consensus" x3, and "keep" (last). NikoSilver 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as these regions are cited to be inhabited by Kurds, there's no real reason to delete the cat. NikoSilver 21:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would Michigan State University qualify? There lives at least one Kurd there. Majority would be Arbitrary inclusion. Categories should not be used to convey census data (not to mention there is no census on Kurdish population). -- Cat chi? 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other sources though. when we say "inhabited", we certainly don't mean a couple of students. No brainer. NikoSilver 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do "we" (who is we anyways) mean? 10 people? 100 people? 1000 people? 40% population? How is that not arbitrary? -- Cat chi? 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I said, no brainer. Won't you ever quit? NikoSilver 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will never "quit" if I feel something falls under WP:OC and that it has been kept by WP:CANVASSed votes. -- Cat chi? 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a serious allegation. Do you have equally serious proof to back it up? NikoSilver 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence should be self evident. Two users with Greek POV are voting before anyone else. One of them voted just minutes after the nomination and is not a regular participant in CfDs. That aside a number of people who participated on the earlier votes have been sanction on various degrees for disruption. -- Cat chi? 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Practice what you preach on your userpage: WP:AGF. NikoSilver 22:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming good faith. These greek/armeian/kurdish voters had stumbled upon the CfD by sheer coincidence. Some made their first (and last) projectspace edit also coincidentally. Some didn't even know english and yet find their way to the nomination pages by sheer coincidence. You were inquiring if I were to ever "quit" a few lines above. Funny you bring up WP:AGF... -- Cat chi? 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no idea about what you're saying, since I didn't participate in any of them. Judging by your accusations now, I understand there are more cabal theories coming. However, disputing an admin's decision in closing a previous CfD has proper venues, and this one is simply not it. NikoSilver 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet. I suspect it will be CANVASSED as well... Sorry if I do not sound enthusiastic - but it is merely the result of previous noms... I am not accusing anyone specifically - but thats how CfD's are. Anyways, I do not believe I will pay any more attention to this particular nom. I made my arguments. -- Cat chi? 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why this all seems familiar :) This has been looked at before, the category states it's for the traditional Kurdish-inhabited area - evidently Michigan State University doesn't qualify. Other places though, such as Diyarbakir do (as affirmed by the Encyclopaedia Britannica); inclusion should be approached on a case-by-case basis and if there are none, such articles have no place in the category. Reliable sources for each included article are needed; when such sources are found for Michigan State University, then that may be included also. I find Cool Cat's grounds for proposing deletion baseless; this is evident to anyone who sees the kind of examples of "non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" and "arbitrary inclusion criteria" cited in that guideline. Also, I must say, I do find Cool Cat's persistent assaults on all things Kurdish very tiresome.--Ploutarchos/Domitius 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about categorizing random cities in Greece, Germany as "Turkish inhabited" or Cities in United States Hispanic inhabited... How is that helping navigation? -- Cat chi? 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't compare the situations. Are there any "traditionally" hispanic areas in the USA, or have all inhabitants been there for the same time. I would not object to categories on the locations of American indians though because that is a very similar example to this case. NikoSilver 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty. All of Greece was traditionally Turkish during the ottoman empire. So no problem in categorizing every single city. Every chunk of the United States is native American traditional area. Hispanic people have traditionally lived in a vast amount of area. There is even verifiable information on percentages. Yet - cities are not categorized accordingly. Can you identify the so called black belt? How many categories do you think every single US city would need? -- Cat chi? 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why is everything Kurdish always up for deletion? Again and again and again? This is relevant information and the deletion is fundamentally based on straw man arguments. While we have a category Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where cities of Turkish inhabitants of that island are placed, I suppose the nominator would prefer a Category:Kurdistan rather than the current name? Thought not. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish figure skaters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of previously CfD'd content. VegaDark 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish figure skaters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recreated recently deleted category. Kolindigo 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disputed convictions

Category:Disputed convictions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, To quote: "This category lists people who have been convicted of crimes, but whose convictions have been controversial. People listed in this category have not currently been proven to have been wrongfully convicted, although their cases may be under review." Controversial convictions come in many stripes as evidenced by the people included: that the convicted person didn't do it (actual innocence), that s/he didn't get a fair trial, that the law itself was unfair or should be repealed, and others. And how does WP verify that any of these is true? Well, evidently, the "controversial" nature of the conviction just means that someone (the convicted person usually first) thinks that the conviction was wrong. This category does not make any attempt to differentiate among the various members who really have little in common but for some undefined but apparently expansive view of "controversial" and them being convicted of some crime or another. One might sense that the entire category is a POV problem (that it is a subcategory of "human rights" seems to beg the question of just because popular belief or conspiracy theorists make something "controversial" it becomes a human rights matter). But, at bottom, because there are no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion, it's a POV quagmire and uncurably so. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, possibly rename. It is not true that "the entire category is a POV problem". The two articles I've worked on in this category (Peter_Hugh_McGregor_Ellis and David_Bain) are good examples; each case has been through several appeals, with both now being appealed to the Privy Council, and each has been the subject of multiple books. The fact that these convictions were controversial is not in dispute. Categories that have grey edges, and where strong opinions are involved, e.g. Category:LGBT people, should not necessarily be deleted; we just need to ensure that there are clear criteria for inclusion and to insist that the reason for placing each article in the category (here, that the conviction is controversial) must be verifiable. The nominator has not discussed their concerns on the category's talk page; I think the human rights categorisation should probably be discussed there, although I don't have any objections to its removal. Would we perhaps have fewer problems if the category was renamed "Controversial convictions"? -- Avenue 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the other "controversial" category deletions. Most convictions will be controversial to someone. Doczilla 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla. Lesnail 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doczilla. The only convictions which are not disputed are those where the convict pleaded guilty, without arm-twisting or plea-bargaining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not every conviction will have a book written about it, i.e. not every conviction will be verifiably disputed. I think that's the critical point here. -- Avenue 22:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that some of the subcategories of this category already cover many of the less controversial possible members, such as the Salem Witch Trials and Category:Wrongful convictions. What remains therefore are articles about people who are convicted, whose conviction has not been overturned, and whose innocence has not actually been established, but whose appeals of conviction have gained some sort of media attention. Just my opinion but this seems to subjective to be a good category criteria. I would disagree with Avenue's stance above that "Categories that have grey edges, and where strong opinions are involved ...should not necessarily be deleted". Rather I would say they usually should be deleted, with the burden of proof to keep the questionable category squarely on the shoulders of the editors who want to keep it in place. Note that this is slightly harsher than the criteria to keep a questionable article; bad categories have broader negative effects than bad articles and thus the barriers preventing bad category creation are higher. Dugwiki 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese celebrities

Category:Chinese celebrities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Australian celebrities this is not a useful sub-level category. The individual articles should all probably be in some other more apropriate category, such as Category:Chinese actors. After Midnight 0001 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communities in the Mojave Desert

Category:Communities in the Mojave Desert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify and Delete. Same reasons as Cities in the Mojave Desert. I have had issues with many subcats in Category:Mojave Desert. I think the suggestion to listify these is the right way to go. Vegaswikian 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost in Space episodes

Category:Lost in Space episodes to Category:Lost in Space

Category:History of Kurdistan

Propose renaming Category:History of Kurdistan to Category:History of the Kurds
Nominator's Rationale: Rename/Merge, Borders of Kurdistan is vaguely defined. Declaring something inside/around "Kurdistan" can be and often is controversial. However establishing a connection with Kurdish people is non-controversial. Since the intended coverage is "Kurdish history" such a rename should be trivial. -- Cat chi? 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vaguely defined or not, it is still a de facto state as much as Palestine is. Tarc 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurdistan is NOT a defacto state unlike Palestine. Kurdistan doesn't claim to be a country. No one claims Kurdistan to be a country. -- Cat chi? 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is entirely your opinion, which really does not factor into deletion discussions. Tarc 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? Can you cite evidence of this defacto Kurdistan government that claims to exist as an independent country? -- Cat chi? 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Iraqi Kurdistan, for one, but what it does or does not "claim" is not the point. One does not have to nation status in order to be recognized as an entity notable enough for an article or category in the Wikipedia. See: Sealand, Kosovo. Tarc 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Iraqi Kurdistan claims to be a federal state of Iraq. Sealand claims to be a country unlike Kurdistan. Defacto countries are fine. Kurdistan is a defacto country no more than my living room. You are yet to cite evidence otherwise. -- Cat chi? 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have an article named Kurdistan, talking about a historical which presumably has a history, so a category called Category:History of Kurdistan is entirely appropriate. There is no need that Foo must be a country in a Category:History of Foo, we have Category:History of Oregon (and 49 others no doubt), we have Category:History of Germany and Category:History of Italy that have lots of articles which predate the formation (and re-formation) of those countries. The argument that the borders are vaguely defined or changeable is also a strawman argument. The borders of the US have changed since 1783, those of Germany were constantly in flux, like those of nearly every nation over time, that doesn't mean that the category is invalid. A history of the Kurds may overlap with but not be the equivalent to the history of Kurdistan. Just like a History of the Turks would differ from a History of Turkey category. One may talk about what the Turks did before they came to settle in Anatolia; the other about the civilizations in Anatolia before the Turks arrived. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So we are going to imply Kurdistan a country status? Kurdistan to this date never had defined borders. Nothing strawman about that. -- Cat chi? 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regions are entitled to their historic cats. NikoSilver 21:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever Kurdistan is or is not now, it was once a country, and it is certainly a region, even if a troublesome one to define. I don't see why it is not entitled to a category. Although this is not strictly relevant I note that we also have a category Category:History of the Suvadives abot a now defunct country. Lesnail 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurdistan was never a country. If the historic topic is relevant to Kurdish independence, it can be called just that. If it is relevant to a defunct country, it can be categorized accordingly. Category:History by region prefers History by city, by continent, or by country. There are far too many geographic regions out there and if we decide to use one we will have to use them all. Area occupied by Kurdistan probably overlaps Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Assyria, Middle east, Western Asia Ottoman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, and half a dozen other regions. -- Cat chi? 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Category:History of Macedonia which is for Macedonia (region).--Ploutarchos/Domitius 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not bring such highly controversial matter as a rationale to this discussion. -- Cat chi? 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...because Kurdistan isn't controversial? NikoSilver 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Several Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish users claimed that yes. Macedonia terminology has an entire article about it. It is far more controversial and is definitely not the best possible example in many ways. -- Cat chi? 22:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I wouldn't know about that... The point? NikoSilver 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally categories should be well defined and non-controversial. The point is "Kurdistan" is an unnecessarily controversial term which can be avoided with relative ease. "Kurdistan history" and "Kurdish history" go hand to hand unlike "Macedonian (region) history" and "Greek/Bulgarian/Macedonian (people)".
    Since I do not stalk people or review their contributions aggressively, I have no way of knowing on who is active on which article. My apologies for attempting to "lecture" you on "Macedonian terminology".
    -- Cat chi? 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing not "well defined" about it. It may include a)Kurdish language films, b)Films with/about Kurdish people, c)Films shot in traditional Kurdish areas etc. A category's existence being depended on the perceived controversiality [sic] of the subject is beyond me. Stalking is occasionally an acceptable practice; when someone is vandalizing or when someone displays a pov rage for instance. NikoSilver 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalking is prohibited behaviour. Reviewing contributions of a disruptive user is not considered stalking. Making it a habit to review all contribution of people one happens to disagree with constitutes as stalking. There is no verifiable source that establishes "well defined" borders for Kurdistan. There are no natural boundaries nor any agreement on maps. See this map or this map for examples. The maps hardly match. One reaches the Persian gulf while the other removes Turkey from existence. We could use retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters's solution to Mideast as our map as well. (Map suggestions were not intended to be taken seriously) -- Cat chi? 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Buddhism

Category:Anti-Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same as below. Other anti-religion categories are being deleted with rationales that are unique to those particular categories. See below. Andrew c 18:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Subjective inclusion criteria as well. -- Cat chi? 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, subjective category per many precedents. Doczilla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Hinduism

Category:Anti-Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other anti-religion categories are being deleted left and right. I would have liked them all to be considered together as a block, but now that some are already gone, it seems unbalanced to have some but not others. The more specific rational can be found below, or in the previous debate. Andrew c 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Subjective inclusion criteria as well. -- Cat chi? 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're generally not supposed to categorize people based on opinions. Doczilla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Judaism

Category:Anti-Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now that Anti-Islam sentiment and Anti-Mormonism have been deleted, and the 3 Christian related Anti-s are on there way to be deleted, I'm proposing this one to be deleted as well. The rational is that these sorts of categories are hard to define and can be used slander people or organizations. Also, per over categorization, holding an opinion is not always a defining characteristic. Andrew c 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Subjective inclusion criteria as well. Anti-semantism was deleted before IIRC. -- Cat chi? 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague, subjective category per many precedents. Doczilla 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years of the 18th century in the United Kingdom

Category:Years of the 18th century in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subcategories.

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801, separate categories exist for events in Great Britain and in Ireland for this period. Tim! 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous man-eating animals

Category:Famous man-eating animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I know that there are several Famous animal cats which have recently been discussed and closed as no consensus. This one however is empty. Since I'm not sure how long, instead of tagging it WP:CSD#C1, I'm placing it here. After Midnight 0001 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete inadequately defined category with sexist name. Doczilla 21:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Delete Just to reply, I'm not sure the name is sexist. It refers to "man" as the species, not the gender, as in To Serve Man. The word "Famous" isn't needed, though, and "eating" might not always apply (such as when an angry elephant accidentaly kills a handler - the elephant isn't trying to "eat" the person.) I'm borderline on the category definition, too. All in all I'd support deleting the category, but I'm also open to suggestions to rename or replace the category with something similar possibly. Dugwiki 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Wild West gunfights

Propose renaming Category:Famous Wild West gunfights to Category:Wild West gunfights
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per WP:NCCAT, only famous ones are in Wikipedia. After Midnight 0001 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in the Mojave Desert

Category:Cities in the Mojave Desert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We do not categorize cities based on geographic regions. A list could be better. I created List of Cities in the Mojave Desert for this purpose. -- Cat chi? 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Maybe not the most significant geographical region, but reasonably well-defined. fI don't see anything that the list does better, and several things it does worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rhinos

Propose renaming Category:Rhinos to Category:Rhinoceroses
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Rhinoceroses is a more encyclopedic name. Note that the main article is under Rhinoceros and that rhino is a disambiguation page. Also see this similar discussion on Hippopotamuses: [1] Lesnail 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kurdish films

Propose renaming Category:Kurdish films to Category:Kurdish-language films
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, As per Category:Films by language syntax, should be merged to Category:Kurdish-language films. -- Cat chi? 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heritage registers

Category:Heritage registers to Category:Public registers of buildings and structures

Rename. I'm not sure what on earth we should call this category, but it certainly should be something a bit clearer than "heritage registers". (While we are here, does anyone know what the German, Polish, Russian, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Indian, etc. equivalents are? Wikipedia seems to cater rather poorly for this type of topic.--Mais oui! 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose suggested rename, but open to other suggestions - While "heritage register" is an unclear phrase, "public registers of buildings and structures" is even more unclear. However, I do agree that the category needs a new name. Maybe someone can suggest an alternative? Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed theologians

Category:Reformed theologians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is a sub-category of Category:Calvinists, so I propose renaming it to Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians because:

  1. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between ministers and theologians proper (the two fields often overlap).
  2. The terms "Reformed" and "Calvinist" are often used interchangeably. Some (including me in the past) have tried to draw various distinctions between the terms -- e.g., Baptists and others who don't accept traditional Covenant Theology cannot be considered "Reformed"; or Karl Barth (and other non-traditionalists operating from the Reformed tradition) should not be considered "Reformed," though Barth is called such in reliable sources such as the the Harvard Theological Review ("...Calvin and Barth, as Reformed theologians, ..."[2]) and the Scottish Journal of Theology ("Barth [is] Calvinism's greatest theologian since Calvin"[3]). Since the terms are often used broadly and interchangeably in reliable sources, since there are no agreed-upon criteria for distinguishing the two, and since WP:NPOV requires us to represent all significant points of view, we must be as inclusive as our most inclusive sources, rather than as exclusive as our most exclusive source. That is, we must describe how the terms are commonly used rather than how some particular party thinks they ought to be used.

Hence, John Piper and Charles Spurgeon, for example, should be members of Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians rather than just Category:Calvinists.

This nomination is the suggested follow-up to a failed nomination that did not achieve consensus. This nomination solely deals with the renaming (i.e., it does not concern super-, sibling, or sub-categories). --Flex (talk

  • Oppose for now, for two reasons:
    1. although ministers and theologians overlap, they are discrete categories. However, I could be persuaded to change my mind on that point if someone had some rough numbers on the extent of the overlap
    2. my theology is a little rusty, but isn't the label of "reformed" widely used to include Calvinsts, Lutherans, Zwinglians and all the other offshoots of the reformation? (Anglicans, for example, have often described themselves as "both Catholic and reformed"). You may be able to correct me, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to have Category:Category:Reformed theologians with subcats Category:Calvinist theologians, Category:Category:Lutheran theologians, Category:Zwinglian theologians etc? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strikeout my second grounds for objection, now that I have read Reformed churches, which I should have done at the outset :( However, I have another question: to sidestep the arguments about the relationship between the concepts of "calvinist" and "reformed", shouldn't this category be named as something like "Calvinist and/or reformed"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding #1: While there is certainly something to be said for the distinction between "minister" and "theologian", in this context, I think it is just to combine them because Calvinists tend to be rather intellectual and involved with the abstract parts of Christianity, viz. theologizing. The two roles are more overlapped than in other Christian groups, methinks. Many (most?) notable Calvinist theologians are/were also ordained as as ministers in some Reformed denomination (e.g., J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, John Frame, Andrew Purves, James Petigru Boyce, Michael Horton, Meredith G. Kline, Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, the Princeton theologians), and may serve/have served in a church as their primary occupation (e.g., Jonathan Edwards, John Gill (theologian), John Piper (theologian), Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller) while publishing theology on the side. Not many (any?) notable ministers in the Calvinist/Reformed tradition aren't also theologians (that's usually why they're notable!), though there are a few theologians who were never ordained as or served as ministers (e.g., Wayne Grudem, R. Albert Mohler). I'm not opposed to having two subcats (Calvinist theologians, Calvinist ministers) in principle, but since it seems to me that the wide majority of the entries would get both, doing so would not be particularly helpful as a categorization scheme. Better would be a cat for Calvinists by occupation, which would have subcats of Calvinist ministers and theologians, another for Calvinist politicians, another for Calvinist artists, etc., so that the contents are well differentiated and overlap is notable (e.g., with Abraham Kuyper being both a Calvinist theologian and politician). --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding your question: it just seems too bulky to have both "Reformed" and "Calvinist" in the title, and since they are often used interchangeably in reliable sources (cf. also the intro to Calvinism), I think it's fine to pick one. As to which one, I suggest the more common one: Calvinism (cf. Five points of Calvinism, Neo-Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, History of the Calvinist-Arminian debate, Template:Calvinism, WP:CALVINISM, etc.). Besides, the primary point of this renaming is to abolish the non-neutral distinction between "Calvinist" and "Reformed". --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics registered superheroes

Category:Marvel Comics registered superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superfluous, non-defining, likely temporary, potentially disruptive to parent categories. Also, it's a "current status" category like "fictional teenagers". Should delete under the same rational as "depowered mutants" in the wake of the House of M crossover. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is categorization by a storyline element (as the characters are registered in the fictional universe, not the real one). This can change over time, or it could become irrelevant. I therefore recommend deletion. Note that similar categories have been deleted in the past. Dr. Submillimeter 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "current status" category per above. Doczilla 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Huxtable family

Category:Huxtable family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - not sure if this qualifies as speedy/empty. There are listings in the category but all of the listed items are redirects to The Cosby Show. Otto4711 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirects don't qualify for categorization. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities on the Great Lakes

Category:Cities on the Great Lakes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We do not categorize cities based on geographic regions. A list could be better. I cerated List of Cities on the Great Lakes for this purpose. Cat chi? 12:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I expected to agree with the nomination, but this one looks to me like one of a few a useful exceptions to the rule. Sure the usual division of Category:Cities is by country, and in North America they are usually divided further by state (in the USA) or by province in Canada. However, there are several other categorisations in use too, including:
    The Great Lakes region is not just a major geographical region with a clear definition; it's also an economic region and, perhaps most importantly, a cross-border region, the only clearly-defined cross-border region in North America. I don't think it would be helpful to have a proliferation of other geographical categories, but this is a valuable exception to the rule. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    I think that is a bad example. "Coastal cities" merely means the city is near the shore. (I dispute the usefulness of that category too btw). I am not certain what the intended scope is, should Lansing, Michigan be tagged with Category:Cities on the Great Lakes? Wouldn't a list be better? -- Cat chi? 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not consider this a geographic region, but instead a geographic attribute. Cities on the Great Lakes have a commonality when it comes to history, and human affairs that could be interesting for WP users. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I recommend a list instead? -- Cat chi? 15:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the advantage of creating a situation where, for example, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario are not in any common category? I don't see that we gain anythig from having a list, and we lose the flexibility and navigational assistance of a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also do not see the point of having a list. These are Wikipedia pages that share a certain characteristic. I'd say it was a perfect candidate for a Category. A list is not necessary, in my opinion, since all cities have WP pages, there is no extra information that needs to be added to put each entry in context, and there is only one usual way to sort these items (alphabetically). I don't se ethe advantage of a list, I'm sorry. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't that. There are far too many geographic regions out there, some controversial (such as "Eastern United States"), if this is allowed so should they be allowed. It would be messy. Being on/around the great lakes can be mentioned in the articles. Overall it is trivial information hence not warranting a category. -- Cat chi? 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, there are some really hazy geographical concepts out there, and Eastern United States is a good example of one that's too vague to be useable. However, this one has a clear definition (albeit badly worded): cities which front the great lakes or are alongside rivers connected to the Great Lakes. And far from being trivial info, I'd have thought that being on the edge of the Great Lakes was one of the defining features of places like Toronto, Thunder Bay and Duluth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why is it that geographic things are not categorized by geographic region? IT seems like a logical category tree. 132.205.44.134 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the uselessness of geographic definitions and their vauige/overlapping borders. Political (Country/State/Province) are on the other hand useful. -- Cat chi? 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gnostic saints

Category:Gnostic saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Insufficent relevance to create an invasive labelling. Deelete, perhaps listify, if consensus over inclusion criteria can be reached. --Pjacobi 10:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - William Blake, Paul Gauguin, Merlin, Moses, Muhammed, Odysseus, and Osiris are all currently labeled as Gnostic saints, even though they would not be regarded as saints by the vast majority of people or possibly even by every Gnostic church. Maybe listifying would be appropriate just to indicate the saints recognized by the various Gnostic churches. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - gives undue weight to tiny minority views. I wouldn't be opposed to a reliably sourced list of Gnostic saints for notable denomination(s) under WP:NPOV#Undue weight since it is not intrusive toward the articles in question. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but seek expert input.
    Given that we categorise saints for other faiths, and because it seems that gnostics have a rather different set of saints to the christian churches, I think we should start from the presumption that we should try to have a categ here if it can be made to work. A list )or lists) would be a good idea, and the category would help in compiling the list, but I think we really need some guidance from editors with expertise in gnosticism: I know too little about the subject to understand how much divergence there is in the list of saints held by each strand of gnosticism; if those lists diverge too much, then I think that the category would be unworkable (and I note Gnosticism#.27Gnosticism.27_as_a_potentially_flawed_category). I'm wary of seeking out such editors in case some accuses me of canvassing, but I hope that note at Talk:Gnosticism will be acceptable. I am quite open to changing my vote, but for now I think I have insufficient information to reach a conclusion that "gnostic saint" is an unworkable concept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to have to agree with the deletes above. When we are categorizing William Blake and others, we find the the most defining characteristics. Unfortunately, the fact that he is a gnostic saint isn't in the top ten list of most defining characteristics. How many books on Blake mention this? And if any do, how much space do they give to that aspect compared to his other defining aspects? Contemporary Gnosticism is very small. Allowing their POV to be placed on all these otherwise irrelevant pages is giving undue weight to a minority view. -Andrew c 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question That's a persuasive argument, but what about restricting the categ to 3rd-century gnosticism (Gnosticism as a potentially flawed category? Would that be workable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'd agree to that but not under the category "Gnostic saints" but rather "Gnostics". It's not clear whether Gnostics even had "saints". IPSOS (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this list of "saints" is completely idiosyncratic and was made up out of whole cloth by Aleister Crowley for his Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. While there might be some agreement on some of these "saints" from other modern branches of Gnosticism, most of them are peculiar to Crowley and his followers. IPSOS (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew C Johnbod 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saudi Arabian political parties

Category:Saudi Arabian political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Move to Category:Political parties in Saudi Arabia. Soman 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Darwin — Wedgwood family

Propose renaming Category:Darwin — Wedgwood family to Category:Darwin-Wedgwood family
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, main article was just moved with consensus to Darwin-Wedgwood family. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Postlebury 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favor of the far superior article on the family and the family tree, which do a much better job of illustrating the complex family relationships than an alphabetical category can and which serves as an appropriate navigational hub for the various interlinked articles. Otto4711 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per discussion at Talk:Darwin_—_Wedgwood_family#Requested_move. Keep category as a useful way of linking the articles: with 58 members so far, the category is big enough to be navigationally useful, and it serves as a handy adjunct to the family tree and article. This family includes so many notable people that the categ is well-worth-keeping as a useful exception to our current good work on pruning family categories ... and it is also useful in that it includes more than just people. The only non-biog article I see so far is Down House, but others could usefully be included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Keep per nom. and BHG. Lesnail 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and BrownHairedGirl Tim! 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and BrownHairedGirl Johnbod 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tramp oil

Category:Tramp oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not a valid category. It appears the new author wanted this to be an article. Samw 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Semi-Synthetic

Category:Semi-Synthetic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is not a meaningful category. I believe the new author intended this to be a new article. Samw 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Princesses of France

Propose renaming Category:Princesses of France to Category:French princesses
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match siblings in Category:Princesses. Brandon97 03:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Attractions in Greater Miami

Propose renaming Category:Attractions in Greater Miami to Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per Category:Visitor attractions in Florida and convention of Category:Visitor attractions by city. Oliver Han 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Louisville arts venues

Propose renaming Category:Louisville arts venues to Category:Arts venues in Louisville
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per convention for buildings and structures. Oliver Han 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest withdrawing pending the outcome of this CFD regarding renaming some categories currently under "Louisville, Kentucky" to "Louisville." If that doesn't pass it's likely that the entire tree will be nominated to be renamed to specify "Kentucky." Otto4711 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_23&oldid=125331154"