Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16

Category:Hebraic people

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Hebraic people to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: The term "Hebraic people" is confusing and I'm not sure it's universally understood to mean descendents of Eber. The name "Hebraic" invites further confusion with "Hebrews", which is often treated the same as "Israelite" (e.g. not including all Arabs, Edomites, and other tribes that claim descent by Eber). The category as it stands seems to be using mainly religious figures (Bible, Quran) and ethnic groups claiming descent from Eber (e.g. modern-day figures, non-religious figures haven't been included in this category). I'm not really sure given this context what a proper name would be, but it has to be something less confusing; maybe "Religious lineage of Eber"? "Descendants of Eber"? Not sure what to do with this, would appreciate help. Please note when viewing the existing category that there is an editor currently mass-deleting Quranic figures and other articles from this category, so they may not appear there. -- Joren (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I agree that, as it stands, the present name is confusing and/or misleading. Your suggestion Category:Descendants of Eber appears preferable, although someone else might have a better suggestion. JackJud (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2010 (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:Irish born Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Irish born Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete? Usually place of birth is not defining. Is this an exception to that general rule? (I don't know enough about the historical and current UK–Ireland dynamics to know one way or the other.) If the category is kept, needs to be renamed to Category:Irish-born Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As being non-defining, and a small category with no real potential to grow. Lugnuts (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. "Just because you are born in a stable, it doesn't make you a horse" was Wellington's view of trhe matter. Johnbod (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that quote to be apocryphal, but in any case you've misquoted the Duke.Belacqua Shuah (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- they should be categorised as "people from Ireland", without needing the intersection-category too. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too small a category with little potential for growth. JackJud (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe argument that there is little potential for growth is myopic, a corner of Ireland is still a part of the United Kingdom and a number of sitting Lords are Irish-born. It's entirely possible that there may be future Irish-born UK Prime Ministers.
  • Delete Too small a category. Avoiding myopia and taking the longer view: if there is a sudden flood of Irish-born Prime Ministers over the next quarter-century, this discussion can be revisited in 2035.45ossington (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- it is notable, IMHO, that a person would be PM of country, but come from an area no longer part of that country. However I see a lack of parallelism if there are no equivalent categories for England, Scotland, or Wales, or for immigrants. Other thing is: it is birthplace that matters, or the constituency that they represented? Perhaps rename to Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom representing Irish constituencies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevlar (talk • contribs)
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:Projects by Nakheel

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Projects by Nakheel to Category:Nakheel Properties
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard name for categories about companies. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • question. What is the purpose of this category, in the long run (by current owner / by original developer / ??)? Will it remain in place if the sheikhs decide to split, sell, or simply rename their company? Or if Nakheel divests just one of their projects? they change hands all the time. East of Borschov 07:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took it to be properties that the company is involved with. I have no attachment to the category so if appropriate you can propose a delete. I will note that we have categories for shopping malls by developers and these do tend to move around also. If this is simply intended as a list of work currently underway that will be turned over to another company after completion, then a listify to the main article would be the better approach. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Mar4d (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (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:Evangelists

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. Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Evangelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete?. Can someone please tell what an evangelist is and how it is different from being a preacher, minister, or missionary? It seem that we use the word "evangelist" if the person does their preaching on TV or radio and comes from a charasmatic denomination, but there doesn't seem to be a functional difference. Remember that Wikipedia catalouges concepts, not words, if several words cover the same concept, we explain them together. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it defining? Do I have to evangelize as a hobby or as a profession? For a few years or my whole life? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- An evangelist is some one who proclaims the gospel. There is an overlap with a minster of religion, but most of them are preaching in churches to those who are already Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if I am notable for being a painter all my life but I decide to "proclaim the gospel" on weekends, should I be categorized here? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
    Flank speed 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Per what criteria? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:46, 26 November 2010 (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:Private and independent school organizations in England

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Private and independent school organizations in England to Category:Private and independent school organisations in England
Nominator's rationale: Rename The most common usage in British English is ~isation . Timrollpickering (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -
    Flank speed 19:39, 29 November 2010 (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.

Boundaries v Borders

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boundaries of U.S. states to Category:Borders of U.S. states
Propose renaming Category:Boundaries of Delaware to Category:Borders of Delaware
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Common name for most of the state categories and the parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (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:Quaker clergy by nationality

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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Quaker clergy by nationality to Category:Quaker clergy
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category has no pages and only one subcategory, Category:American Quaker clergy, which only has a few pages and is up for discussion below Purplebackpack89 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – and then merge further to
    talk) 19:11, 19 November 2010 (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:Scott family (English aristocracy)

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:Clan Scott. If consensus forms at the article's talk page that the use of "Clan" for a family (more specifically, for this family) from the Borders is incorrect or awkward, then the category name should, of course, be revisited. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scott family (English aristocracy) to Category:Scott family (Scottish aristocracy)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Scotts are a Scottish family. They could also be described as British, or from the United Kingdom. But they are not an English family. 45ossington (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about
    talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • How about Category:Scott (nobility) which avoids the geographic tangle. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either would in my view be better than the present error. BUT: (1) Although I myself have no objection to calling a family from the Borders a "clan", it is a controversial description when applied to any family not from the Highlands and sounds odd when applied, for example, to a 19th century Duke, resident at Bowhill House near Selkirk; (2) "Scott (nobility)" might be said not to cater adequately for (a) the various notable Scotts who pre-dated the grant of a peerage, or (b) the various notable Scotts who were/are less closely related members of the extended family (a peer may be a noble, but it would sound odd to British ears to call his first cousin a noble). If pushed to choose between the two suggestions, I think I would favour the former... 45ossington (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_27#Category:Scott_family for how the category got its current name. Not much of a clear consensus for what in my opinion is the wrong outcome. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is at Clan Scott so unless that article title is contentious (and it doesn't appear to have been) then in the absence of anything else rename to Category:Clan Scott. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom "Clan" normally refers to highland clans. The Scott family are from the borders. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified
    WP:SCOTLAND. AllyD (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2010 (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:Pacific Watershed of 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: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pacific Watershed of North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. While this might have potential, the current usage does not justify retaining. Someone with more knowledge in this area should be allowed to recreate in the future. Note that I did remove Category:Lower Colorado River from here since that is about the river and not the watershed. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything, this should have been "Pacific Ocean watersheds of/in North America" or "North American rivers draining to the Pacific Ocean". In its current form, also, the "Watershed" needn't be capitalized, and should be plural. I also don't see the utility of this category, and given that everything west of the Continental Divide could easily be in it, it seems far too omnibus in nature, as well as a needless classification over-reach; and in its current form an assumption/virtual declaration that there's only ONE such watershed. What the point of having the Colorado, Sacramento, Columbia, Fraser, Stikine, Skeena, Copper, Yukon etc in a common category is...I fail to see. It's a long ways from the Gulf of California to the Bering Strait....Skookum1 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator of this category continues to add articles and categories to it, quite single-mindedly despite this CfD...the latest is Category:Pacific Northwest - which IS a "primary region of North America".Skookum1 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until/unless Category:Pacific North American basins, under parent Category:Watersheds of the Pacific Ocean, is created and has sufficient articles to be populated. - With model being Category:Atlantic North American basins under => Category:Watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean.---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dispute the contested deletion statement: "geographic location is a primary region of North America, as is the Atlantic Watershed of North America" is not true, thse are not "primary" regions of North America (e.g. Great Plains, Canadian Shield, Western Cordillera etc); claiming that the Pacific/Arctic/Atlantic watershed division are "primary regionS" is original research. Also, justifying one article/category on the basis of another article/category that's ALSO misnamed is not valid. the historical name for the Pacific side of the Continental Divide, also is "the Pacific slope" (or capped as "the Pacific Slope").Skookum1 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Example this edit is typical of some cat-additions being made; I reversed it because the archipelago is already a subcat of a subcat of the Pacific Northwest category; and it's questionable if offshore islands, whether this or Vancouver Island or the San Juans, should be in such a category.Skookum1 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2010 (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:Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament involving the Dominions

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 16:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament involving the Dominions to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I just created this today and then I realized that we also need a place to put legislation and royal proclamations that deal with the 13 Colonies, pre-1922 Ireland, the Raj in India, and all other Imperial possessions that were not "
Dominions" in the post-1907 sense of the word. I propose Category:British law concerning the Empire or Category:Law of the British Empire or Category:British Imperial law, or some such. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem with the revised proposal is that it could only be relevant for those acts post the union with Scotland. What to do with Acts of the English Parliament involving Ireland? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, since the British Empire never existed as a state or legal entity, but rather is a description of an historical phenominon, this does not really matter. Pre-1800 Ireland was a part of the British Empire just as surely as the Pope is Catholic. We also don't need to limit ourselves to the period after 1707, because we rarely encounter the term "English Empire" or "Scottish Empire" in historiography (note that English Empire redirects to the British Empire on WP, and that this article starts with pre-1707 information). This is part of the pre-history of the British Empire. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If " Pre-1800 Ireland was a part of the British Empire", then so was England and so was Scotland. In which case, Category:British law concerning the Empire would include laws dealing with poltholes in Essex. How withthat be different from a Category:British law in general? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect that the concept is Acts of Parliament applying (or intended to apply) outside the United Kingdom. The British Parliament is constitutionally able to legislate beyond its borders, but generally does not as it unable effectively to enforce such laws. The independence constitutions of many commonwealth countries are Acts of Parliament, so fall into the concept of category; so are certain tax statutes which provoked the American Revolution. Legislation relating to Ireland 1801-1922 ought not to be included. This is a real category, but I am not sure what we should call it, possibly ;Category:Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom operating extra-territorially. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is/was Canada extra-terretorial? Were the 13 colonies of New England extra-terretorial? Surely they were all part of the Empire or indeed the realm? As such, they were integral to the Crown. To say otherwise would be a cause of offence to George V who was styled "His Majesty George V, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". So he was King of all overseas terretories. If the UK parliament was competant to pass laws for the Isle of Wight, then it was competant to pass laws for other islands under its control (full or partial), for example the islands of North America and Australia. To call them extra-terretorial is to deny George V his rights. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Dominions are definitely "extra-territorial", and noting other comments here there's a big difference between Commonwealth countries having constitutions that were British Acts of Parliament, and the Dominions having constitutions that were British Acts of Parliament. While there may be a need for separate categories, e.g. for legislation concerning Jamaica or Tonga or Hong Kong on the one hand, and for legislation involving the Dominions, who were a special category within the Empire's administration (the term was originally coined for Canada, so as to not "offend" the US by putting a Kingdom on its northern doorstep, and then extended to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa....anywhere else that were Dominions? Don't think so, maybe Rhodesia?Skookum1 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newfoundland and Ireland were, Southern Rhodesia wasn't, it was a special case colony. The term was still used in the post war with India, Pakistan and Ceylon all being referred to at times. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To conclude: Ireland, England and Scotland were constituent kingdoms of the UK. They were not extra-terretoria (no more than the Isle of Wight was). But Ireland was also a Dominion. So this circle cannot be squared without a very long winded explanation in the category header that teases out these nuances. Given its internal contradictions, would the best thing not be to merge with British Law in general? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • England and Scotland have never been constituent kingdoms, since 1707 they have been part of a single kingdom, before that they were in personal union. Ireland was a little more confused but post 1922 it was most definitely a Dominion. We already have division by subject in the category tree and reversing this will make the top level categories harder to search. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-offer Propose to delete the category and instead populate the parent category with those cats such as "Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament involving County xxx". Gets round all these thorny questions with no loss of info and without too many sub-cats in the parent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the suggestion to delete this for now and subdivide them by country. Once they are divided perhaps a container could be re-considered under a different name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2010 (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:Watersheds of Arctic Ocean

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, for now. It is very likely that more work needs to be done here, but it's not clear what yet. So I'm just fixing the grammar error.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Watersheds of Arctic Ocean to Category:Watersheds of the Arctic Ocean
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe that add the 'the' is the correct form. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an ocean be a watershed? I thought that only mountains could perform that function. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but watersheds do feed oceans. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An
heights of land", or "continental divides". I personally prefer drainage basin for these categories as it is less ambiguous than watershed. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
If we have a better term then I have no objection. But is that supported by sources? I'll add that there are a number of watershed categories so maybe this issue goes deeper then this one category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the point I was trying to make (in a smarty pants way) was that it would be more accurate to describe it as "Watersheds that empty into the Artic Ocean that originate in landmasses which border the Artic Ocean". As this is impossiblty inelegant, I think that the attempt might best be abandoned. I find it strange to think in such terms. I'm more used to thinking of the landmasses, not their adjacent oceans. We're in danger of veering into OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. & re: this cat:Arctic and above Category:Pacific Watershed of North America post-delete & in a new form - perhaps the Atlantic's hierarchy naming and content organization is a helpful model ? Example: Category:Watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean => Category:Atlantic North American basins (& cat:EU, cat:Africa, cat:S.Am.) =>Category:Chesapeake Bay Watershed (& Category:Basins of the Gulf of Mexico, cat:others) => many river-watershed 'Chesapeake' articles. I'm not knowledgeable enough about this field to really discern, but Atlantic seems done well ?---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - shouldn't this have been speedied? -
Flank speed 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. New re-name proposal Having looked into it a bit more, I'm inclined to agree with the editor above who said that they should be called basins. Looking at the article Drainage basin, it becomes clear that the major drainage basins of the world are divided into 3 categories: ocean basins, river basins and endorheic drainage basins. By this logic, the category should be renamed to "Artic Ocean basin". Similarly, the Altantic should be re-named to "Atlantic Ocean basin". The sub-categories of river basins can then be populated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are not really opposing, but you are recommending a rename to Category:Drainage basins of the Arctic Ocean. Right? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose it would be more accurate to desribe my opposition as a counter-offer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Drainage basins of the Arctic Ocean. This basin vs watershed issue has appeared in a few places. The experts seem to think that drainage basin is the proper name and gets away from various meanings of watershed in different versions of English. So this would appear to be a proper and acurate name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss, this Category:Drainage basins of the Arctic Ocean from directly above is not consistent with the precedent establishing Category:Watersheds of the Atlantic Ocean as the parent category for world's oceans on this topic. The Atlantic's subsequent 'children' and 'grandchildren' categories use either Drainage basin or Watersheds, I do not know why or even if important. So I....
Support Category:Watersheds of the Arctic Ocean----Look2See1 t a l k → 04:07, 24 November 2010 (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 Quaker clergy

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 per nom. Three of the five articles are already in Category:Quaker ministers, The other two shall be added to keep them categorized as clergy/ministers. Further discussion can be held if, per Occuli, it's decided that nationality subcats are needed in the Quaker ministers category. Kbdank71 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:American Quaker clergy to Category:American Quakers
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge Page has only two entries. Should probably be merged back into the parent cat, Category:American Quakers Purplebackpack89 05:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quaker clergy by nationality has only one subcategory and no pages, so it probably should be tossed as well. Not seeing how the second one is germaine Purplebackpack89 07:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move per user Purplebackpack rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move [see below] – part of the scheme
    talk) 14:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You can't really call Category:Quaker clergy by nationality a "scheme"...the category has no pages and only one subcategory (this), so I've nominated it. With regard to the clergy-minister thing, it's kind of complicated, as the Society of Friends is one of those religions that chooses it ministers from its congregation, often choosing people with no clerical training Purplebackpack89 16:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack's point is aposite: without an episcopacy, is it even right to think in terms of clergy? If a leader just emerges, as the Spirit moves, is the category even theologically supportable in Quaker terms? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case I would support deleting them all. However I think some of these were ordained and had theology degrees, it that matters. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think (upon reflection) that this is the best option (or just upmerge to
    talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (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/2010_November_16&oldid=1136103063"