Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< July 20 July 22 >

July 21

Category:Lists of islands by group

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 as empty. (As stated, don't empty a category and then nominate it for deletion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete because the qualifier "by group" is too vague, and the category is not needed. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is empty. What was in it before? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- My guess is that it was for lists of islands in archipeligos, for example a list of the islands of Hawaii, the Philippines, or the Scilly islands. I suspect that the contnets (if any) have been moved to a better naemd category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were only 3 articles in it, one was the list of Aleutian Islands, one for islands of Gdansk, and one I don't remember. I think it would need a better & more clear name if it were for archipelagos. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least the three articles should be kept together in a Lists category (if not in a separate category, then in a Lists category with a broader scope). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They already are in either Category:Lists of islands, or a more specific list category. My point is that "by group" is not clear or specific, as it could mean "archipelago" or some other kind of group, but it is not a definitive word to use. I could not find any other list category in the geography-themed categories that used the term "by group", thus, it should be deleted. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I agree to this rationale, just wanted to make sure that we do not lose any relevant data. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Funandtrvl, please in future make a nomination and wait for consensus, rather than emptying a category yourself. What you did here[1] is considered "out of process". For the record, the other former member of this category was the Faroes. – Fayenatic London 21:12, 4 August 2015 (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:Lists of parks by U.S. state

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. MER-C 12:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match to Category:State parks of the United States and simplify and clarify name. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2015 (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:Film trilogies

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At least in most cases, I doubt there's anything specifically notable about them being trilogies rather than (wince) quadrilogies, beyond that the studios opted to (or not to) make additional films. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support being a trilogy is not by itself a particularly defining trait Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Four words: Smokey and the Bandit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Film series allow for any number of films without having to update the category each time a new one is made. MarnetteD|Talk 21:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Film series and trilogies are essentially different entities. In many cases, series are open ended, continuing, as we have seen too many times, even after supposed conclusions. Many are even planned to continue as long as possible (like the
    Tora-san series, or many of the series in Japanese film history). Trilogies, however, are closed ended, planned to end in three parts. The modes of production, distribution, and narration are quite different. Michitaro (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per Michitaro. It's defining to several trilogies, Three Colors, Matrix, Back to the Future to name just three (hehe). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there may be cases where the films existing as a trilogy is a defining trait as noted by Lugnuts and Michitaro, it doesn't appear to me that this category makes any attempt to make such a distinction at this time. I would weakly support making it more clear that this category is only for cases where the fact that the films are a trilogy is in and of itself somehow important, but I would more strongly support presenting this sort of information as a list article where sources could be provided establishing that the fact of the films being a trilogy is significant in some manner beyond the studio opting not to pump out more product. DonIago (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for the record, lists already exist for film trilogies and series of other numbers, see Lists of film series. There are no categories for series of other numbers. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Lots of series are planned to end in a certain number of parts. There's nothing special about 2, 3, 4, etc. Besides, any trilogy could have a fourth film added in the future. kennethaw88 • talk 04:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while some trilogies may have been planned to end in three parts, others just end after three because of budget or creative issues. Is the Toy Story franchise a trilogy? It has 3 parts, but somehow I don't buy that it would become an inherently different type of series if it went to 4.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (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:Clergy in Europe

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:Religious leaders in Europe. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clergy are already grouped by denomination and country, I don't think that a continental division is very helpful to readers. There are also red link categories for other continents like Category:Clergy in Australia and Category:Clergy in North America that only contain Christian clergy so they are redundant. I don't think creating those categories would be appropriate as the category tree is not well-developed and I'd like to remove those red links. Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The RC category needs to be moved down to Category:Christian clergy in Europe. I am surprised that that one is not more fully populated. The objective for having a category such as this might be to parent religious leaders from other faiths, but the real asnswer to my query may be that this clergy tree is an aberrant twig that needs to be merged to the religious leaders tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query What is the relevance of "RC category needs to be moved down to Category:Christian clergy in Europe" to this niomination? Move it if you want; it dooes not effect this nomination. Please explain why you believe this category to be "an aberrant twig". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The occupation "clergy" occurs in many faiths, not just Christian faiths. See the scope definition of
    church, temple, mosque, etc.)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The point is that this category is only being used for Christian clergy, it is not interfaith. This is one whole red link nonexistant category tree. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that's not the point. The fact that it might currently be populated only with Christian clergy is irrelevant. The point is that it has the scope to cater for all clergy, Christian or otherwise. All it need is for somebody to populate it with rabbis and LDS leaders. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a "continental division" not "helpful to readers"? They're OK for every other "by continent" category but not for clergy? Why? The redlink issue is now cured - I've created the categories and populated them. The category tree is now well developed and shows considerable potential for growth. I think that that about covers all of the nominator's rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Instead we should merge to appropriate elements of Category:Religious leaders, which is where most clergy categories are. That is a well developed tree. I suspect that the present category either got missed in wider rename or has inadvertently been created by someone who did not know that the clergy are in that tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a well-developed clergy tree within the well-developed religious leaders tree, are you suggesting we should upmerge the entire clergy tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I hope not. What to do with theologians? They may be religious leaders but not necessarily ordained clergy. The two are not synonymous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theologians are not necessarily clergy (term used for various ordained roles in certain denominations, including deacons who are not leaders) or religious leaders (appointed leaders of congregations or larger groupings); they should be in Religious workers, as Marcocapelle says. – Fayenatic London 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Religious leaders in Europe, and speedily apply this to the whole structure of Category:Clergy by continent which Laurel Lodged has built since this nomination was made. "Religious leaders" is the more comprehensive description, and has been approved for Muslim and Hindu leaders as well as various Christians; see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories for a list of precedents. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been a lot of discussions about this topic before and all the way I haven't been too certain about what would be the most optimal solution. On the one hand, clergy is a very defining term in the real world while the term religious leaders is merely a Wikipedia invention. On the other hand (especially in the US and in East Asia) there are numerous self-appointed religious leaders whom generally wouldn't considered to be clergy. So we need religious leaders categories if only to categorize these people.
I've come to think that categories of religious leaders would be appropriate at the top level for religions while a category of clergy would be appropriate at a lower level for churches and likewise formal religious institutions. So that means that e.g. Roman Catholic clergy can and should be a child category of Christian religious leaders.
But as we are discussing geography here (Europe), this is neither a religion nor a church, so a separate clergy category is not really necessary but also doesn't harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Marcocapelle - a wiki neologism cannot be preferred over a commonly understood term. And as Marcocapelle also rightly observes - it does no harm. To return to a previous point, who's to say that a theologian, besides being a religious worker, isn't also a religious leader? What is
    Hans Kung if not an inspirational leader? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's clear then that "Clergy" is needed as it has the advantage of being common, verifiable and clearly defined (ordained or its equivalent). In this sense, it will be limited to the mainstream religions with such structures (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Judaism). The only need for an overarching category called "Religious leaders" then, is to mop up the odds and sods - the self-appointed religious leaders as Marcocapelle with more charity labels them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2015 (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:Redditors

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. MER-C 11:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:TRIVIALCAT. Trivial, non-defining, and arbitrary (do you need to be a frequent user to be a "redditor", and how do we verify this?) What's next? Category:Facebookers, Category:Google users? Nymf (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2015 (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:Action stars

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. MER-C 11:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Perfect example of a
WP:PERFCAT. Nymf (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2015 (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:Superstition in India

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 per User:Kenfyre and merge. Note that merging Category:Reportedly haunted locations in India as proposed by User:Human3015 will require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The subject category be merged with Category:Superstitions of India as all the categories under Category:Superstitions by country or region are of the format Category:Superstitions of FOOPLACE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of a strange category tree, Category:Superstitions by country or region. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 21 July 2015 (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/2015_July_21&oldid=1138408748"