Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

October 2

Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America

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: relisted on oct 8. Kbdank71 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America to Category:Baptist denominations of North America

(Proposed category name is changed from "in" to "of" North America -- much more common format.--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename - There is a whole struture of categories of on denominations-- and a whole separate struture of categories of on church (building)s. "Denominations and churches" is unclear and confusing as people will sometimes use the term "church" to mean a "denomination". There are already:

Category:Baptist churches in the United States

Category:Baptist churches in Canada

Category:Baptist denominations

Category:Christian denominations of North America

--Carlaude ^(talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is certainly a problem here, but I don't think an independent church is a denomination - is the intention to remove these from the category? A note on the category defining its scope and pointing to alternatives for buildings etc would be the first step. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I only found one or two churches the category to begin with, but my intention is make this category clear-- clearly about denominations and not independent churches or church buldings also, so that its loction in other categories is clear. I want to remove it from the the Category:Baptist churches, etc.-- and eliminate and perceved need to keep a page in both "Category:Baptist denominations" and "Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America" when they can just be put in "Category:Baptist denominations in North America"

I also think it would be unclear what is meant by an "independent" Baptist church (all Baptist church independent in goverment, and some with the word "independent" in the name may still work with a denomination)-- but better to have "independent" Baptist church in own category or no category than mix them in with Baptist denominations.--Carlaude ^(talk) 15:59, 3 October 2008 (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:Reformed Church

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: relisted on oct 8. Kbdank71 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I propose that the Category:Reformed Church be retired as unclear and the items therein be moved to either Category:Reformed denominations (mostly) or Category:Calvinism. If you go to Category:Christian denominations you will see most such categories are of that form, e.g. Category:Methodist denominations, where Category:Methodist churches are instead about church buildings. I have also propossed this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Calvinism, with positive feedback so far.--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support generally - Category:Reformed denominations is itself not the clearest term & should probably be renamed, maybe to Category:Calvinist denominations. Whilst broadly Calvinist churches seem to be the only ones to use "Reformed" in their titles, the term is often used elsewhere with a wide range of meanings - see the current version of English Reformation which is desperate to avoid any statement referring to the 16th century Church of England as "Protestant", so uses "reformed" instead! That certainly doesn't mean Calvinist. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally object to Category:Calvinist denominations but I have never known such groups use that term, at least not formally. Their very anit-saint outlook seems to move them avoid naming themselves or denominations or churches after any human, like Calvin. Theology can be "Calvinist" or "Reformed" but churches, formally speaking, are "Reformed".

Maybe, Category:Calvinist and Reformed denominations would still work for them.--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:15, 3 October 2008 (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:Types

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. Kbdank71 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Association solely by the word 'type'. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's at useful parent category for those it contains. --Eliyak T·C 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't this duplicate Category:Categories by type ? 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, at least not at the lower levels. So a merge might not be the right solution. Types of and by type have traditionally been used for two very different types of classification. The first list classes of the object and the second lists members of a class. The first is generally only used when there is a significant number of different types. Using a real example, if you wanted to see the articles about the various types of roller coasters, then you would look in Category:Types of roller coasters. If you wanted to find coasters of a specific type you would look in Category:Roller coasters by type. The former is not a structure and the latter is. Both are members of Category:Roller coasters. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Categories by type, thouigh I'm not sure we need either. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One affect of the classification from my above comment, is that Category:Types will never be inclusive since the vast majority of things to be included would never have enough article to necessitate a category. You could say the same for the other, but there will be many more categories of that type, think of all of the Category:Foo by city categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this category is deleted, then it would be fair to propose Category:Categories by type for deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that this cat has 2 problems. First is that the word "type" is horrifically vague. And further, the category's inclusion criteria seems to be any category with "Types of" or "X types" in the name. And finally, the category suggests a pseudo-naming convention to suggest that other categories should be named this way. When instead, the categories should be probably named to more specific names. For example, Category:Comics types was renamed to Category:Comics formats. Now the new name is clearer, but it now would seem to disallow inclusion in the "types" category, even though the category membership hasn't changed, and "formats" are still "types" of comics. "Types" is a convention that I think should be deprecated. (And perhaps even noted at WP:NCCAT as a "word to avoid".) - jc37 13:20, 7 October 2008 (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:Pharmaceutical recalls

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. Kbdank71 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More cleanup of Category:Drugs: This category was created for a single, one-sentence article -- which has been proposed for merger into another article. As far as I'm aware, there are no other articles about Pharmaceutical recalls. (We do have an entire Category:Withdrawn drugs, but that is a different issue.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2008 (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:Image copyright tags

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. Kbdank71 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Image copyright tags to Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow up to this discussion where a rename for this category was discussed but it was never tagged. This rename would match the one for the other category in the discussion (Category:Wikipedia copyright templates). It would also match the name the parent Category:Image namespace templates and replace the confusing word 'tag'. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Yes, the previous rename of Category:License tags to Category:Wikipedia copyright templates was good. And this suggested renaming of Category:Image copyright tags to Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates would also be good. Adding "Wikipedia" makes it clear it is an internal category, and "templates" is somewhat clearer than "tags". (And "copyright" is clearer than "license", even for public domain templates .) And it doesn't matter that the category name becomes fairly long, since it is only used on template pages. --David Göthberg (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (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.

Religion by region categories

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. Kbdank71 13:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename to be more in line with these categories' actual usage. --Eliyak T·C 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but hasn't the wrong Jewish category been included? See the parent. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course Oceania is not a continent, e.g. Category:Hinduism in Oceania, Category:Jews and Judaism in Oceania. --Carlaude ^(talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Now that I see the categories I think the Rename is good, but since we have no good difference between the terms in practice we should combine Category:Religion by continent and Category:Religion by region. This will make it much more possible to find the needed subCategory.--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~. I suggest nominator gets somewhat familiar with the two partially interdependent hierarchies Category:Categories by region and Category:Categories by continent. They are both well established and this nomination would make an infraction that most certainly wouldn't hold very long. Why not simply create the proposed categories and sort out the content between the two structures, continent and region. There should be plenty to go into each. __meco (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have retroactively taken up your suggestion, and am already somewhat familiar with the categories by geography structure. The reason why I nominated these categories specifically is that there would not be much to go in them if they were used only for regions that are not continents. --Eliyak T·C 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Religion in the Middle East, and Christianity in the Middle East. Although not comprehensive, these examples suggest that this structure is in fact viable. As for the specifics of the three categories you mention, I may tend to agree with you, so I'm making myself neutral for now. __meco (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. And yes, Oceania can be considered a continent, as the article states. This rename seems to bring the names more into line with what they actually contain, which is "by continent" subcategories. I don't see any regions included that can't be considered continents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 5 October 2008 (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:Act of War series

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. Kbdank71 13:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category only covers two directly related articles and an unnecessary template. There is no need to categorize such a small scope of articles. TTN (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- In few weeks i wanted to nominated this for deletion. Did not have the time for it. So thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2008 (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:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places

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/split per below (my bot will rename to Category:Bridges on the National Register of Historic Places, then I'll poke Appraiser to manually remove the tunnels to its own category. Kbdank71 13:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places to Category:Bridges and tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The old name is incorrect syntax Appraiser (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split into Category:Bridges on the National Register of Historic Places and Category:Tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places. Given the size of this category, it makes sense to split it rather then just simply rename.Vegaswikian (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK, although the vast majority are bridges.--Appraiser (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, but there were a number of tunnels so that category would be well populated. It also provides a cleaner roll up into the parents of Category:Bridges in the United States and Category:Tunnels in the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well as making it an awful lot easier to find the tunnels, since they're currently strewn amongst the bridges. Cgingold (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Appraiser (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(modified) Propose renaming Category:Bridges and tunnels that are Registered Historic Places to Category:Bridges on the National Register of Historic Places. I'll manually change the ~12 tunnels to Category:Tunnels on the National Register of Historic Places if there are no objections.--Appraiser (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the new proposal. I'm not sure if that's technically a renaming, or a category split into two names, but in any case, we should call them "Category:____s on the National Register of Historic Places" per recent talk at WT:NRHP. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly this would then be a split. However if at the end of the discussion the tunnels category was created, that could be removeed from the combined parent and then only a rename would be left and that could be processed by the bots. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the modified proposal. Cgingold (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (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:Foo singles

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 all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Babes in Toyland singles to Category:Babes in Toyland songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A list of categories: Foo singles to Foo songs as per naming convention. Wolfer68 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and per the text 'There is also consensus that no artist should have a "singles" category' of the parent Category:Songs by artist. Occuli (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and per convention.-choster (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2008 (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:Central Highland Tasmania

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. Kbdank71 13:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Central Highland Tasmania to Category:Central Highlands (Tasmania)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy. I originally suggested "Central Highlands Tasmania", but have changed the rename proposal per the comments below. (Note that Matilda's comment may have had reference to the original proposal, not the revised one. I'm not trying to make it look like she agreed with the new name if that was not her intent.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename but suggest Category:Central Highlands (Tasmania) as more appropriate. The name of the region is "Central Highlands", Tasmania is a mere disambiguation term and not a formal part of the name. It would also be consistent, FWIW, with the parent article Central Highlands (Tasmania). -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename --Matilda ^talk 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to proposal by Mattinbgn. Orderinchaos 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFDS at this point.

Support - I had created the category and modified the central highlands council article to get some regional issues in Tasmania sorted out - and had asked for a speedy (sic) thanks to all for the support - my mistake for being singular when it should have been plural - as for (Tasmania) there is actual usage of the unbracketed form in books and online materials - I had created the Central Highlands article and category to be parallel to but not embroiled with the Central Highlands local government article - as the usage goes beyond the actual boundaries of that authority in usage: for the general edification of all the edit that might shine light on the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Highlands_(Tasmania)&diff=92012815&oldid=30080242 - and typically there are commercial usages without any sign of such http://www.centralhighlands.com/ Satu Suro 02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Support match naming convention used in parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (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:Corporate categories of Norway

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Corporate categories of Norway to Category:Categories named after companies of Norway

Nominator's rationale: Rename for compliance with its siblings in Category:Categories named after companies, as well as being clearer about the purpose of the category. choster (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Seems sensible and uncontroversial. The existing name is ratter ambiguous. __meco (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. --Eliyak T·C 14:34, 5 October 2008 (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:Islands of Victoria

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 per september discussion. Kbdank71 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islands of Victoria to Category:Islands of Victoria (Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup as an incomplete nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I tagged it but failed to include it in the previous nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are other Victorias with islands. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2008 (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:Public transport in the Yukon

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 per September discussion. Kbdank71 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public transport in the Yukon to Category:Public transport in Yukon

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup. Appears that it was intended to be a part of this discussion but was left out. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I tagged it but failed to include it in previous nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2008 (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.