[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 9 March 11 >

March 10

[edit]

Category:Vancouver Whitecaps (W-League) players

[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 to Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women) players. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think it's worth having these two categories. The team played in the USL W-League for the entirety of its existence. Although to be consistent with the parent article, perhaps the merged category should be called Category:Vancouver Whitecaps FC (women) players? I'm not sure if that can be done here or if I'd need to request a renaming if my merger request is successful. Many thanks, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:57, 11 March 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.

Category:Independent Eastern Orthodox denominations

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@Chicbyaccident, Laurel Lodged, and Place Clichy: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 23 January 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 Bezpopovtsy Raskolniks. 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]
Relisted from WP:CFD 2019 January 23 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 10 March 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.

Category:NHS hospital trusts

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "NHS hospital trust" is no longer in use. Since the 2013 reorganisation of the NHS, a range of trust types were abolished, and all trusts are now either "NHS trusts" or "NHS foundation trusts". See here: [1] BLSMD (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wikipedia does not have to follow official policies when it comes to categorising articles. The 2012 legislation didn't actually say anything about types of trusts. All trusts were already either "NHS trusts" or "NHS foundation trusts", but some run mental health services, some acute hospitals, and some ambulance services. That distinction is helpful because it enables the articles, via their categorisation, to be linked to the appropriate clinical field. Furthermore there have been a lot of mergers, so many of the articles are about organisations which no longer exist and are not affected by any official recategorisation. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every trust is either a Foundation Trust or an NHS Trust. But the smaller ones can, or could, be properly subcategorised as hospital trusts, community trusts, mental health trusts or ambulance trusts. The process of amalgamation which is now being encouraged means that the larger organisations now appearing may well perform several of these functions, so it doesnt make much sense to subcategorise them, and it may be that those subcategories will, in the long run, only contain organisations which are no longer operational Rathfelder (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The real problem is not the hospital trusts, which generally still exist, but the community and mental health trusts, which are repeatedly merged and reorganised. And the ambulance trusts, which need to be linked to a different category tree. The point of the subcategories is to distinguish them. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2019 February 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 10 March 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.

Churches

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 19#Churches

Category:Environmental radio

[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: purge and merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity: these are programs, not stations or anything else. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 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.

Category:John Gottman

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tiny eponymous category. I've already added a bunch of categories to the articles, so it's all ready to go. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 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.

Category:Subsystem

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined scope. It could mean any number of things to different people. Currently, it's being treated as for software subsystems, judging from its members. It probably shouldn't be renamed to "Software subsystems" either, since that suffers from the same problems of poor definition and vagueness. 99Electrons (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The category, as of nomination for CfD, had 11 entries. Seven are related to IBM subsystems which, including their precursors, are over 30 years old, and whose current implementations process a large percentage of all mainframe work. Of the remaining four, 2 have the name subsystem in their title and are Microsoft-related.

    CICS? If that's not a subsystem, stop the world - CICS and its play-a-likes (e.g. Uni-Kix, based on how some people say C-I-C-S and others say KICKS) are the "windows" to non-batch dating back longer than . . . ? That leaves just one: Interix. If that's vague, take out Interix. The rest are subsystems.

    What's interesting is that there are other articles that are about subsystems and are not tagged with Category:Subsystem. Since some are about hardware, I'd recommend either leaving it as, or renaming it "Subsystem (computing)" Pi314m (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dispute: The nomination refers to a definition. There isn't even an article on Subsystem, just 2 sentences in another article, and a REDIRECT pointing to same. The first sentence
"A subsystem is a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a component of a larger system"
has no citation; the second sentence,
"A subsystem description is a system object that contains information defining the characteristics of an operating environment controlled by the system"
has an IBM citation.
What about WP:AfDisNotCleanup? That makes for 2 cleanups, (a) the Subsystem subsection of System and (b) adding more articles to Category:Subsystem. Pi314m (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: New pair of sentences added @ ===Subsystem===
The IBM Mainframe Job Entry Subsystem family (JES1, JES2, JES3, and their HASP/ASP predecessors) are examples. The main elements they have in common are the components that handle input, scheduling, spooling and output; they also have the ability to interact with local and remote operators. Pi314m (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guy Harris: @Pi314m: I was wrongly assuming that the list of elements you added in the Subsystem section are generally applicable, not just to IBM. Since this list of elements is IBM-specific it is not of any help to explain the broader concept of a subsystem and you'd better remove that second sentence. The question remains: what do IBM subsystems and Windows subsystems and other subsystems have in common with each other, except for the name subsystem? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 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.

Category:New Christians

[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/merge to Category:New Christians (conversos). – Fayenatic London 08:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
or renaming
Nominator's rationale: (without recommendation). I created this cat page to fill a set of redlinks, after @Cateyed added ten articles to the non-existent category.
This is not my topic area, but it from my reading of New Christian and Converso I am unsure whether the distinction between the two terms is clear enough to make a viable category without a lot of overlap contrary to WP:OVERLAPCAT. Hopefully some more knowledgeable editors can comment.
If the category is kept, then it name is multiply ambiguous: it could refer to converts from any era, or to members of the The New Church (Swedenborgian), who are also known as "New Christians". I suggest Category:New Christians (conversos) as a disambiguated title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If someone has tagged articles for categories that don't exist wouldn't it be better to simply remove that category tag (e.g. revert the edit including restoring any previous category tag) rather than creating the category? Otherwise, you risk creating a category for a subject that you are not knowledgeable about and hence may duplicate an existing category or have incorrect parents etc (and cause extra workload at CFD). DexDor (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in draftspace or a user sandbox, then I disable the categories (e.g. [2], [3]). In some cases I just revert, with a boilerplate edit summary linking to WP:REDNOT (e.g. [4]). In other cases the cat clearly should exist, so I create it (e.g. Category:Tehran University of Medical Sciences alumni). Sometimes I may redirect the red cat (e.g. Category:Films shot in Hyderabad). If there's an existing cat which is specific enough I apply the correct category (e.g. [5]); in other cases I just fix a typo (e.g. [6]). In some cases I find that the new category has subsequently been created but should probably be deleted (e.g. Foyle College, so I CFD it).
However in some rare cases there seems to me to be a prima facie case for creation which I am not sure how to evaluate. Those are v rare, because in most such situations the editor concerned creates the category page and it doesn't enter my workflow; I think I do a few each year, so that's about one in 2,000 cases. In this case, creation and prompt CFD seemed like the least-worst way of bringing more eyes on it. I tagged the category talk page for the relevant WikiProjects, so that it will show up their article alerts, and I will also leave a note at WT:Christianity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the articles aren't really clear about it, I think that 'conversos' are people who converted during their lifetime, while 'new Christians' are the descendants of conversos (who were born as Christians). I'll leave a notice at the talk page of both articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all articles in this Category:New Christians concern people who were born Christian but descend from Jewish people who converted to Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t think we should join it with "conversos". There is a difference between a Converso and a New Christian. Converso is only the person who converts, while New Christians are their descendants up to the third generation. Torquemada for example was a New Christian but not a Converso. It could be merged with "Spanish people of jewish descent", but New Christian isn´t specific to jew converts, and is more limmited in how far away the "descent" goes. You are right that the title may be confused with another church though, if the category is kept. Maybe the disambiguation would work, or even keeping the name in Spanish as " Cristiano Nuevo" to avoid confussion?
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the second option in the nom, and invert the parenting so that Category:Conversos is a subcat of Category:New Christians (conversos). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 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.

Category:Wikipedia character-substitution templates

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For concisions and to be consistent with almost every other such template category (Category:Character templates, Category:Line-handling templates, Category:Example-formatting templates‎, Category:Typing-aid templates, Category:Unit indicator templates‎, and insert 100+ other examples here). While there are templates in the real-world, the few notable enough for any kind of Wikipedia coverage have names that will not be confused with Wikipedia templates and their categorization. We only prefix "Wikipedia" into category names when necessary for clarity (e.g., arguably in the very broad Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates). Doing that unnecessarily makes it harder to find categories and to properly categorize things, for no actual gain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:49, 10 March 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.

Category:México Indígena

[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need whatsoever for this tiny category. The primary article is already well-categorized, and there's no serious likelihood of adding further articles beyond the two it has now. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 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.

Category:American political women

[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. (non-admin closure) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem to entirely overlap. TM 23:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it is currently used. It currently includes all women in politics, including Category:First Ladies of the United States and Category:Second Ladies of the United States.--TM 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the whole of Category:Women in politics is a messy hybrid of politicians (i.e. those seeking or holding electoral office) and people with some other political role.
So in this case, I would
  1. keep Category:American political women
  2. Rename Category:American women in politics to Category:American women politicians (which should be a subcat of Category:American political women)
However, I think that needs a wider discussion somewhere. I would be willing to do a group nomination of all the by-nationality subcats of Category:Women in politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 10 March 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.

Christian socialists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. If some of the lower-level sub-cats are particularly small, with no indication of being defining, there may be mileage in a re-nomination of specific merger proposals. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT, there is no evidence that membership in these churches significantly influences their socialist beliefs. These are (or should be) proponents of Christian socialism, not Anabaptist socialism. TM 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added the other similar categories.--TM 19:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you also need to copy the CfD tag from Category:Anabaptist socialists to the other category pages. I wish this would be a lot easier, but it is what it is. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose denominational mergers. Many of these are well-populated. In several cases, I suspect that the denominational ethos was a significant factor -- not a trivial one. For example, British trades unionism has its roots in Methodism; and Quaker philanthropy in their denominational ethos. Anabaptist an be merged into Baptist. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then do Anglican socialists have a different view on socialism than Methodist socialists? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I address that in my comment below. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Christian socialism is a valid encyclopedic topic. Methodist socialism is not.--TM 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that it is sufficient to know that their Christianity may have influenced their socialism; we need not delve deeper. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – We must bear in mind here that Christian socialism is not solely a topic of political theory but is also a theological tradition. Therefore, it is not sufficient to look solely at the impact that one's denomination has on one's socialism, as Marcocapelle seems to suggest.
That being said, one's denomination can definitely influence one's politics – and Christian socialists are far from being an exception. For example, we can look at Anabaptists' unique view that the state should be subordinate to the church.[1] Or we can look at the interplay between the liturgics, the sacramental theology, the Christology, and the social ethics of the Anglo-Catholic socialists (often described as the "sacramental socialists").[2]
The intersection here is most certainly not trivial; for Christian socialists, one's denominational tradition can greatly influence the form that one's socialism take. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Joireman, Sandra F. (2009). "Anabaptism and the State: An Uneasy Coexistence". In Joireman, Sandra F. (ed.). Church, State, and Citizen: Christian Approaches to Political Engagement. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 73–91. ISBN 978-0-19-537845-0. Retrieved March 8, 2019.
  2. ^ Groves, Nicholas (2000). "Society and Sacrament: The Anglican Left and Sacramental Socialism, Ritual as Ethics". Buddhist-Christian Studies. 20: 71–84. doi:10.1353/bcs.2000.0008. ISSN 1527-9472. JSTOR 1390322.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked a large number of articles in these categories and none of them was explicit about the denominational influence on the person's socialism (or vice versa). Even worse, quite a few articles are not even explicit about the influence of Christianity on the person's socialism (or vice versa). So while there may be a possibility for having separate articles about Anabaptist or Anglo-Catholic socialism, it does not make sense to categorize people separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, quite a few articles are not even explicit about the influence of Christianity on the person's socialism (or vice versa). The inclusion by some people of socialists who happen to be Christians but who are not necessarily part of the Christian socialist tradition in these categories has been an issue, one that I have personally helped with rectifying, removing the categories where they are clearly inappropriately placed. But if that were the basis for deleting categories, surely we would be discussing the whole Category:Christian socialists tree, along with a host of other categories for various theological or political traditions. Of course we would not, however, given that Christian socialism is a theologico-political tradition well-recognized in both the disciplines of theology and political theory.
If this is your primary issue with the category, the solution is to improve its usage, not delete it, especially given that, as Peterkingiron pointed out and my citations substantiate, the denominational connections are far from trivial here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I clicked through all of the Catholic sub-cat and one article in the rest. Some link their Socialism and Christianity and others don't (and should likely be purged) but the articles are not generally linking the type of Christianity to Socialism. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Wouldn't that be an argument for getting rid of the Category:Christian socialists tree altogether? That's not what's being discussed here. Moreover, wouldn't the solution be cleaning up the categories? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't favor deletion of the parent category at all. As you suggested though, regardless of the outcome of this nomination, I would also favor purging articles where the person is socialist but Christian only insofar as childhood/background. (The issue for this nomination is the more narrow question of whether the intersection of denomination and socialism is defining and, while I expected it to be for Catholic vs. Protestant, I didn't find that to be the case with the current articles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise: Merge to broader denominations. Many of these really are defining characteristics, especially Catholic socialism. What we should do is upmerge to the broader denominations: Anabaptist socialists ➡ Protestant socialists, and etc.. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. I get decent hit levels on JSTOR for the intersections I try. It may be that in some cases "Fooian socialism" is not seen as a distinct ideology from broader "Christian socialism"; but it is very clear that there are distinct cultural patterns of Christian socialism within various denominations. For example, the statement by Morgan Phillips that the Labour Party (UK) that it owes more to Methodism than Marxism is very widely quoted: see see Google search with lots of hits on the web, in news, and in books. Phillips's remark also implicitly references the deep cultural divide in England between Methodism and the dominant Anglicanism: in short Methodism is the religion of the industrial north, Anglicanism of the rural south. Merging that into amorphous "Christian socialism" or "Protestant socialism" would erase a crucial cultural distinction which absolutely central to any understanding of the history of socialism in England.
Similarly, JSTOR's hits for Quaker socialism and the existence of organisations such as Quaker Socialist Society reaffirms that there s at least a culturally (and to some extent ideologically) distinct strand of Quaker Socialism.
As to Catholic socialists, just look at the deep vein of literature on JSTOR. This is a widely studied enyclopedic topic.
I am sure that @Namiba (TM)'s nomination was well-intentioned, but it seems to have been based on assumptions about the nature of these various strands, rather than on actual research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it seems to have been based on assumptions about the nature of these various strands, rather than on actual research. One thousand times this. I would love to see some research refuting the interconnection of Christian socialism and various denominations that has been established in this discussion. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - my reson for opposing is threefold, first there is substancial coverage and publications concerning this issue, secondly espeically for Catholic socialism there is a rather strong theological movement behind it, and other branches of Christian socialism as well as described in an above !vote. Lastely most of these categories are reasonably well populated, and if they were all mereged together the Category:Christian socialists would contain hundreds and possibly thousands of articles, which would then lead to editors complaining that it should be broken up, leading to a redundant cycle of creating more specific categories and then deleting them. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:14, 4 April 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.

Province of Rome

[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The Province of Rome was an administrative sub-division of the region of Lazio from 1870 to 2014. It was superseded by Metropolitan City of Rome Capital in 2015. I boldly renamed the eponymous article to Province of Rome (1870–2014) prior to the nomination. The move is necesary to disambiguate it from the modern entity. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the village pump, but the year style should be Province of Rome (1870–2014) or not? – and - is different actually. Matthew hk (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a note. the article was only moved recently by Laurel Lodged from Province of Rome, thus C2D not applies. Matthew hk (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I accept Matthew's correction and have also changed the name of the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Provinc Rome (1870–20e of14), with corrected hyphenation. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a container cat for the cat of the former mayor (or whatever the name of the position) of the province. Matthew hk (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if we will be able to populate that, the article doesn't even provide a list of presidents and article Provinces of Italy does not even bother to describe how the provinces are governed. It does mention though: "Provinces are often deemed useless, and many proposals have been made in recent years to eliminate them." In Italian Wikipedia only 3 presidents of the Province of Rome have an article, of which only 1 also has an article in en.wp. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the it-wiki the predecessor of the Province of Viterbo belong to the former Province of Rome, thus it was placed in the Italian counterpart. However, the en version did not have a trace of that part of history (the province was founded in 1920s, so Roman era history is not that relevant) Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or to be precise, the starting year 1870 is wrong. File:Circondario di Roma.png, old Province of Rome is as big as Lazio region, while Circondario di Roma (circle of Rome) is more similar to the newer Province of Rome, but not entirely the same. So it may have potential but need to import more content from it-wiki to make it relevant. Matthew hk (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments brought up by Marcocapelle and Matthew hk above warrant further discussion. Specifically, is this the right starting date? Should this category be kept at all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 04:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Since the article that moving from title Province of Rome was a bold move, may be better to revert to and start a RM instead. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is not the best place for such discussion. Also, may be it did not need disambiguation bracket for Province of Rome, only if we split the articles from pre-war and post-war province (which they are quite different in size). Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 10 March 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.

1 and 2 article church categories in New York (state)

[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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION, WP:NARROWCAT, and WP:SMALLCAT
These intersection by denomination/location categories are all 1 or 2 article and tend to hinder navigation since they break up small groups of articles and none of the target/merge categories are overly large. As far as growth potential, there are some other churches we don't have articles on in most of the categoreis but too few are notable to foreseeably get to 5 or so articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 10 March 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.

Category:Smith-Wintemberg Award recipients

[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. The award-winners are already listed at Canadian Archaeological Association#Smith-Wintemberg_Award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
It's honestly hard to infer too much about the defining-ness of this Canadian archaeology award from Wikipedia since the vast majority of winners don't have an article and, of the 4 that do, all are pretty short stub articles. For what's it's worth, 3 of those biography articles mention this award in passing with a list of other honors although 1 mentions it in the intro. All 4 articles are already well categorized in 44-article Category:Canadian archaeologists and the winners are listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just in the interests of accuracy, three of the four articles are not stubs. Although I don't see why that matters when we're discussing the category. – Joe (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your perspective as the category creator. Clearly this award is defining to the organisation but let's talk about those 5 references in the article that assert prestige for the recipients:
1 Congratulations in a company newsletter (link)
2 Congratulations in an organisational newsletter (scroll to page 9)
3 An online encyclopedia article without citations with a paragraph on the award within a long article (link)
4 Primary source home page from the issuer of the award who intends it to be prestigious (link)
5 Primary source nomination form to the issuer of the award (link)
While these sources may be allowable as references under WP:RS, "CONGRATULATIONS, DR. RON!" (an actual cited article) doesn't convince me that the award is defining for the biography articles here in Wikipedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear that you're not personally convinced but they are in fact all reliable sources and say that the award is highly prestigious. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, while the sources may be sufficient to allow an article about the award, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good basis for categorization. Only 1 of the 4 biographical articles even bothers mentioning the award in the body text and the source for it is the website of the organization that grants the award, so there is no convincing reason to make an exception on WP:OCAWARD in this case. Note that listification is not needed either because the main article already contains a list, by the way with many redlinks. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DexDor (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete OCAWARD. Lists deal with awards much better, because there is scope for modest commentary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 17 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_10&oldid=1073192164"