Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 5

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< September 4 September 6 >

September 5

edit

Category:Hollywood Supporters of the Democratic Party

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

The result of the debate was Delete. WinHunter (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood Supporters of the Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Would be better to listify, many of the articles don't even mention the celeb's connection to the Dems. Also, why are we singling out celebs? Dismas|(talk) 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify if wanted, then Delete - jc37 22:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's really not that necessary for an article. I don't want to see multiple categories of each actor/actress or notable person supporting the hundreds of political parties out there.--Nehrams2020 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a similar cat. was recently deleted. Michael 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I doubt many of these people actually live in Hollywood. --Rubber cat 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Rubbercat and Mike 7 -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 06:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous temples of Rajasthan

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

The result of the debate was Rename. WinHunter (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Famous temples of Rajasthan to Category:Temples in Rajasthan[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Polish resistance operations

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

The result of the debate was Delete. WinHunter (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Polish resistance operations has been replaced by Category:Polish resistance during World War II[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous people from Piedmont

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

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous people from Piedmont to Category:People from Piedmont, California

  • Rename, Per WP:NCCAT. After Midnight 0001 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and naming convention - jc37 22:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. (But didn't everyone in Piedmont die...?)  Regards, David Kernow 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There's a Piedmont in California? Osomec 10:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Articles that do not belong in this category

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles that do not belong in this category (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, semi-cute paradox; way too cute to be a serious WP category. BTW it would really be more on-point at Russell's paradox (not that it would be appropriate to add it there, either!!). Trovatore 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain myself -- whoops, sorry, I forgot that readers here wouldn't know where the category had been applied. It was at Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Good for a chuckle, but can't be tolerated as a permanent addition. --Trovatore 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (It's a shame it can't be mentioned at WP:BJAODN : ) - jc37 22:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DAFT and delete. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Delete"" I created the category in a genuine attempt to be helpful, but if the consensus is that it's too "cute," I can live with that. My most sincere apologies for attaching the category to the wrong article, though -- if the category shouldn't exist, then I don't plan to add it to Russell's paradox, but Trovatore is absolutely correct that the category would have been more on point there. I wasn't trying to be disruptive to make a point; I was trying to use a helpful illustration to make a point, but I can certainly see how this playful sort of example might not be welcome. K95 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:The 198 Files

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

The result of the debate was no consensus on what to rename to, renominate if desired --Kbdank71 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 198 Files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Comment - Those are awfully long. Were there any other big "depowerings"? -HKMarks 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, I agree with HelenKMarks for this reason: there are more than 198 mutants with their powers remaining (some of them are considered such just because the authors haven't got around to talking about EVERY mutant that was ever created). The 198 number was originally an estimation, but it has been surpassed. Rename to "Powered mutants" gets my vote. Tullyman 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but not to "Powered mutants." This is only about fictional mutants appearing in Marvel Comics. "Powered mutants" would be inappropriate. Doczilla 16:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but I agree that Powered Mutants is a bit odd. Maybe Marvel Comics powered mutants? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a subcategory of Category:Marvel Comics mutants, so I don't know if that's necessary. If it is, though, Depowered mutants will have to be renamed too. -HKMarks 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople

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

The result of the debate was marked and protected --Kbdank71 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as {{deletedcategory}}, see discussions of July 25, August 25. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Osomec 10:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Merchbow 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since [:Category:Hindu athletes]] will probably be deleted.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Leaders of China

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Leaders of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Largely duplicate Category:Chinese emperors, which is not a subcategory of this category (and if made a subcategory, would nearly swallow up this one. In my opinion, delete due to its duplicative nature, but if not deleted, should be renamed Category:Chinese leaders (to be consistent with other Chinese people categories) and should be redefined as non-imperial Chinese leaders. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there had been quite a many influential warlords after 1911. The term "leader" may not be the best choosen. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete due to ambiguous title. How many Chinese does one have to lead, and in what capacity, to be included in this category? --Jiang 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jiang. Osomec 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Chinese Leaders post 1911 (or since 1911) and Merge all pre-1911 leaders (emperors) to Category:Chinese emperors, per discussion above - jc37 22:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Chinese leaders since 1911 and move/merge all pre-1911 leaders to Category:Chinese emperors per Jc37. David Kernow 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Should not be directly merged; Qin and post-Qin Chinese emperors tend to be already in Category:Chinese emperors or a subcategory thereof as it stands. Some of the monarchs in there are pre-Qin (and therefore predate the imperial title -- or at least that is debatable, because it is unclear whether Xia Dynasty and Shang Dynasty monarchs should be considered emperors or not), and perhaps deserve a category of their own (perhaps Category:Chinese pre-Qin monarchs?). --Nlu (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Melissa Tkautz albums

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 album releases to date, not enough releases to warrant a category of its own. -- Longhair 15:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Films by director

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, to convention of Category:Films by director. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Michael 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.--Mike Selinker 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, for convention, and clarity (possessive because the person produced it, directed it, acted in it, danced in it, and then played frisbie with the final reel? : ) - jc37 22:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find something else These guys are both television and film directors. I, personally, only care about the two Japanese directors. Do what you will to the others. --Kunzite 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Guy Sebastian albums

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This artist was the winner of the first Australian Idol television series and has released only 2 albums to date, not enough releases to warrant a category of its own. -- Longhair 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What special case is that? What value does a category of one entry hold? -- Longhair 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Categories. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This special case holds for any type of work which has a "by author" category. There has been a desire to give every album an artist category, and so too with category:Songs by artist.--Mike Selinker 17:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Automakers by state

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Queen categories

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, covered by Category:Queen, Category:WikiProject Queen, Category:Queen articles by importance & Category:Queen articles by quality. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need more than the usual subcats of Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments? -- ProveIt (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because non-article pages (categories, templates, etc.) get tagged with assessment-producing project tags, but aren't actually assessed? It's possible to lump them all into a single category (e.g. Category:Non-article military history pages), but some projects prefer a bit more order to the system. Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn ... although I still think its not really needed. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Writing systems categories

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

The result of the debate was do nothing. Categories have now been listed for over two weeks without having been tagged. --Kbdank71 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writing systems categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Includes all of these. Some have not been created yet but are listed to be at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing systems

  • Keep the delete poster is not familiar with the category structure. Should discuss before vote for deletion. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I am familiar with category structure and choking up Wikipedia with separate cats for the difference between someone who fully understands the Tibetan writing system and someone who natively understands it is silly and a useless distinction. pschemp | talk 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems you are not. Since Fooo-5 is NOT Fooo. Furthermore you did not mark the cats itself. IIRC it is against policy to only vote here without info at the cats. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suspicion is that the creator should have done some consulting and discussing before creating. Not useful. Delete ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These categories are redundant with existing categories. For example, Category:User Arab-5 and Category:User Arab-N mean the same thing as Category:User Arab. --Cswrye 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: This is misinformation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've looked over the categories again, and I still don't see how Category:User Arab-5 is different from Category:User Arab. Could you please explain? In most of the languages that I've looked through, there are only four levels of expertise, and "User foo-N" is usually the same thing as "User foo". --Cswrye 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the the foo-N category, and merge users who belonged there into foo-5. Professional fluency in a spoken language is possible for non-natives, but full understanding of a writing system shouldn't depend on whether or not someone grew up with it. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 21:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you refer to "spoken language" while these categories apply exclusively to written language. Second, a six year old (and we have six year old users) may be a 'native' user of a script (or spoken language), but certainly not professionally fluent. --CBD 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Michael 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you want to delete script profiiency categories that are used by more than 200 users without consulting these users? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are categories which will be used, and will be really helpful to Wikipedia users searching for people with script skills. Andrew Dalby 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal above wasn't clear to me on first reading ... If it is restricted to the categories specifically named and linked above, and doesn't apply to all "the associated categories for Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Writing_systems_templates", I think it is reasonable and I would be prepared to vote for delete, but not in a hurry: time should be allowed for the necessary adjustments to the template (and any manual merging if that's needed). Andrew Dalby 19:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is only for those listed here, to delete and merge to one level since they are redundant. pschemp | talk 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted below, this deletion discussion was not properly announced. Further, there are differing views about using 'XXX', 'XXX-N', or 'XXX-5' as the highest level of 'linguistic category' which currently result in us having Category:User de, Category:User de-5, and Category:User de-N for 'expert' speakers of German. Thus, these categories follow the existing standard practice and there is no reason to separate them out from the hundreds of other categories set up in exactly the same way. --CBD 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; too many people use these to delete them. --Finlay 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason. They would be merged into another category, so no one would lose their category. pschemp | talk 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Jéioosh 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: None of these categories have been tagged for what I can only assume will be merging, so I'm relisting them for another week. Please have them tagged asap. The original discussion is here. --Kbdank71 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all. There is a difference between fully understanding a language, and being a native speaker. - jc37 22:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
edit
  • Comment. I think we're going to need a discussion on how the languages categories should be organized. There's a school of linguistic thought called interlanguage that says non-native speakers can never achieve full fluency in speaking a foreign language, but I'll have to find out whether that's true for writing systems. (If writing systems solely defines alphabets, though, it's hard to imagine that anyone over the age of 7 couldn't establish fluency quickly, unless they had a general literacy problem. With a language like Chinese, though, fluency becomes complicated.) Just some info.--Mike Selinker 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is really bad the admin user:pschemp does this voting in hidden from the users that are in the category and that use the templates. This is really bad behavior. I go and will inform the users. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The system will need to shake down and some redundancy may need to be eliminated, but I'm sure this can be dealt with quickly. Personally I think there are too many skill levels. But deleting everything at this stage will be seriously unhelpful. Andrew Dalby 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I would suggest that 3 skill levels could be identified, but not more than that. Scripts are learned in a different way from languages and the concept "native" or "native-like" doesn't make much sense here. Andrew Dalby 19:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that skill levels with regard to writing systems is redundant and unnecessary. "This user can use the Cyrillic script" is fine. There needs be only one of these for each script. Evertype 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Besides, how can someone be a native user of IPA? LGMᚂ 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed - This is a malformed deletion request. I can't find a notice of this proposed deletion on ANY of the impacted categories. Deleting categories used by hundreds of people without posting any notice of the discussion is a 'bad idea' <tm>. --CBD 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read, the proposal is a merge to simplify, not just delete. No one would lose their precious category, only the levels would be reduced. pschemp | talk 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, this needs to be listed as a nomination for merging rather than a nomination for deletion, and the categories still need to be tagged. What category were you wanting to merge these into? --Cswrye 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Reformed seminaries and theological colleges

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Reformed church theological colleges and seminaries --Kbdank71 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed seminaries and theological colleges to Category:Reformed Church seminaries and theological colleges

I agree. This re-naming makes good sense to be clearer. However, we probably do need a cat. for places like Moore College which is Anglican but also identifies as Reformed (in the broader sense of the word). Cor Unum 11:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Reformed Church however, and that's misleading about the title. I agree that the ambiguity of it all should be cleared up, as any Protestant denomination can claim to be reformed. However, I would suggest such a disambiguation in including the keyword "Theological" before seminaries. This shows that the category is referring to seminaries that teach Reformed Theology, rather than alluding to a non-existant Reformed Church. Therefore, I propose the category be renamed to Category:Reformed theological seminaries and colleges. I remove the "theological" from before "colleges" as it would be redundant and it's made apparent earlier in the category name that reformed theological institutes is what we are referring to. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot85, forgive me if I think you misunderstood the purpose of the request. There is indeed a well recognised family of Reformed Churches, listed in the article Reformed churches and in Category:Reformed Church - that is Dutch Reformed, Swiss Reformed, Church of Christ, Congregational, Presbyterian, and a few others. It is a very useful denomination for a cetegory like this, as it includes many of the twentieth centuries uniting churches such as the United Reformed Church and the United Church of Canada. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the purpose of your request, but I think your definitions are a little off. "Reformed" is not a denomination, it is a brand of theology (Calvinism) that various denominations hold. It is not even a generalization of the entirety of a denominations' beliefs. Take for instance Presbyterianism. I am a part of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church(ARPC), which is a reformed denomination, similar to the Prebyterian Church in America(PCA), but substaintially older. The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) is not a reformed denomination. All are forms of Presbyterianism, in that they ascribe to that style of church government, but the first two are reformed and the latter is not. Hopefully I've illustrated how being "reformed" is not indicative of denomination but simply theological belief. This is why I think changing the name to reflect the seminaries and schools of the "Reformed Church" is misleading. The PCA has a seminary that is a reformed seminary, the ARPC does as well and so do other denominations. None of them are part of the "Reformed Church", but are really schools of their respective denominations and they all ascribe to the same brand of theology id est, Calvinism. Shazbot85Talk 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that "Reformed" is both a form of theology and a group of denominations. The Dutch Reformed, Swiss Reformed, Polish Reformed Church, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Christian Reformed Churches, Free Reformed Churches of Australia, Free Reformed Churches of South Africa, Reformed Church in America, Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Hungarian Reformed Church, etc, are linked together by being "Reformed" in the same way that the Church of Scotland, the Free Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, The Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Free Presbyterian Church of Australia, the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, and others, are by being Presbyterian. There is no formal structure uniting them, but they are related nonetheless. We are chosing how to distinguish between churches that discended from the Dutch and Swiss Reformed churches and those who hold Reformed theology. Blarneytherinosaur 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I want to preserve, that is their link through reformed theology, thus the suggestion I made to change the name. Grouping them according to their theological belief system is A-ok by me, but I don't want to allude to a non existant Reformed Church (or church) and would rather group them by that theological system they share. Thus I don't see how naming the group Category:Reformed theological seminaries and colleges would be detrimental to that. If you wish to include those descended of the original Dutch Reformed, Swiss Reformed, and other reformed forefathers, you'll need to include those denominations that are delineated from them, even though some abandoned that theological system long ago. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition I would also like to add that I would think it would be in the interest of veracity to remove Presbyterianism from the Reformed Churches Category. Not all Presbyterians are reformed, in fact, the largest denomination, the PCUSA, deviated from that theological belief system long ago. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 21:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have told Hroðulf that I would support his proposal and I don't want to back down on my word, although maybe the "C" in "Church" should be lowercase. I don't see how moving the term "theological" would improve the clarity. Blarneytherinosaur 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support change, but not the suggested name. I support the renaming of the Category, but suggest a less confusing name, "Category:Reformed theological seminaries and colleges" be used in lieu of the proposed change.Shazbot85Talk 04:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another response. It seems that Shazbot85 associates the term Reformed (whether theology or denomination) with conservative Reformed churches such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Christian Reformed Church in North America. That is a reasonable position to take, as it is the position of some of the conservative churches that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is not Reformed, because it accommodates some heterodox or liberal theology. However many churches that incorporate liberal elements, including PC(USA), the Church of Scotland and the Dutch Reformed Churches, describe themselves as Reformed.
My hope for this category is that it would use the broader self-described definition of Reformed. I don't think a conservative category would work well at Wikipedia, as there is always the question of "how conservative?". I personally think the same applies for a possible 'evangelical', 'fundamentalist' or 'calvinist' category, as I don't think we could easily come to an agreement about which schools to include, from a list like Calvin Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Moore Theological College, Ridley Hall, Cambridge and Westminster Theological Seminary. It seems to me that affiliated to a Reformed church is much easier to define.
Blarneytherinosaur: lower case 'c' makes sense to me. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stigma attacked to reformed though is that of a Calvinistic sense, which is a coneservative theology. I don't think it's correct to include Arminian or more liberal Christian denominations with the Reformed category, and thus Calvinistic coneservatism, simply because they say they are "reformed". If you take that stance, then any protestant denomination is "Reformed" as they are all offshoots from the Reformation. I prefer to stick with applying "Reformed" with the churches that are actually defined as such, and not with those that identify themselves as such. I can say I am something I'm not, that doesn't mean that I am or should be shown to be as such. I would like to find a reconciliation between our two ideas so that both can be represented on Wikipedia, any help is welcomed. Best Regards, Shazbot85Talk 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about, rather than including churches that describe themselves as "Reformed" as in the "Protestant Reformation" sense, we include those that describe themselves as holding to Calvinism. (Including churches that held to Calvinism when they were founded would allow us to put all of the Presbyterian category in there too). Blarneytherinosaur 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against that. Again, I'm leary about grouping Calvinist and non-Calvinist churches together simply because the latter began as Calvinist. They no longer hold such beliefs and I think it's confusing to include them in a Calvinist or Reformed category because they are no longer fitting of the criteria. Shazbot85Talk 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would people think about Category:Reformed church theological colleges and seminaries? I don't know if there is a precedent for having "seminaries" first, and this would include the lower case "c" church and bring "theological" toward the start, combining Hroðulf and Shazbot85's suggestions. Blarneytherinosaur 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with this suggestion. It doesn't allude to a Reformed Church, but rather identifies with those churchs that are Reformed in the theological sense. Shazbot85Talk 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That name will work.
Once the category is made, we will need to discuss who goes in there, as Liberal Christianity was pretty much invented by people with Reformed (Calvinist) theology. (Unitarianism was also started by Calvinists, but as far as I know, Unitarians do not give themselves the label 'Reformed church' and neither does anyone else.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very much a debatable issue as to whom can be included, and really up to the way we wish to interpret it. By modern standards of the term "Reformed", the category should include only those that still ascribe to Calvinism. If we wish to categorize things the way they were when the Protestant Reformation started, then Calvinism is responsible for "liberal christianity", as the entire Protestant movement was the liberal form in contrast to Catholicism, and also responsible for the forming of several churches and sub-denominations that form what we today label as "liberal christianity". Further still, we could limit that to only churches who began Calvinistic, but later deviated, whether they still claim or don't claim Calvinistic beliefs. Personally, I am for the first, more narrow and modern interpretation of the word. I would be for only the inclusion of churches, denominations, and their respective schools that claim and hold Calvinistic beliefs currently. While the history of more liberal chuches and denominations like the PCUSA is Calvinistic, they no longer hold those beliefs due to major changes within the denomination, and I would argue that they should no longer be classified as "Reformed". They may have started as such, but are no longer, and I would be against their inclusion in this category. Regards, Shazbot85Talk 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the definition of Reformed churches is debatable, and I take the opposite side of the debate. Since categories are not as closely maintained as articles, I personally think debate of the definition should be at Talk:Reformed churches. I agree with the broad statement that is at Reformed churches right now: "Commitment to teaching the original Calvinism usually continues to be reflected in their official definitions of doctrine, but in some cases is no longer necessarily typical of these churches." This is a wiki, so a consensus can change that. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-time summary: four days into the seven day debate, I would summarize the consensus as:

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Australian conservationists

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

The result of the debate was keep; cfd isn't needed to recategorize a category. --Kbdank71 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian conservationists into Category:Conservationists

  • Merge, For whatever reason this category isn't a sub-category of conservationists and is a seperate category entirely as a subcategory of Category:Environmentalists. Either this article be moved as a sub category to Conservationists or deleted due to the lack of populace. Lid 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If not merge, rename to the more conventional "Conservationists of Australia" and categorise in Conservationists. Fiddle Faddle 08:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Conservationists of Australia" is not conventional, but rather is a clear breach of convention. Olborne 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad. I must have misunderstand what I felt to be the conventions. Source, please to educate me and others like me? Note I do see the list of other conservationist categories, but I was under the firm impression that WP convention was to have "Thing" of "Nation" rather than "National Thing" in all other areas than this one. of course I could be entirely up a gum tree (minor joke intended) Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The convention depends on the subject and the number of categories for people in the form "Fooian Xers" is in the thousands. Choalbaton 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've fixed it (I don't see why the nominator didn't). Olborne 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no you haven't [1] --- Lid 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind --- Lid 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I didn't move it was because I was unaware how and thought this was the way to get a merge done. --- Lid 09:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to delete. Choalbaton 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Michael 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A perfectly reasonable category. - EurekaLott 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People are cross catgorised by nationality and occupation. Osomec 10:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What exactly was the reason to delete again? It would have been much simpler to fix the link to the parent category than to have this discussion... Ansell 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this has never been a delete topic, I'm not sure how anybody thought this. The reason I brought this here was because it was originally in the wrong section and assumed this was how to get it moved. –– Lid(Talk) 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard category type - there must be more articles that could be added. Merchbow 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sega Mega Drive/Genesis

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis renamed to Category:Sega Mega Drive & Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games renamed to Category:Sega Mega Drive games per consensus at Talk:Sega_Mega_Drive#Proposed_move. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per consensus - surely if there is a consensus (I have not checked) this could be speedied? Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not think so. Notability is a not a question of personal familarity with a subject. misunderstanding, comment withdrawn. User:Yy-bo 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, plus also rename Category:Wikipedians who play Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis to Category:Wikipedians who play Sega Mega Drive. (This will point out the issue with this nomination to a number of users in the US, who owned a "Genesis," and they may have other opinions.)--Mike Selinker 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sega Genesis and strong keep. Category:Sega Genesis Wikipedians is a shorter solution. Genesis is prefered to Mega Drive in terms of usage (it is more common, from my internet experience). User:Yy-bo 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually the wikipedia article now uses Megadrive. Hence it should be: Category:Sega Megadrive. The goal is to have a shorter name? User:Yy-bo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment that is correct. The clear consensus was to move to Mega Drive because Genesis was only used in on country and Mega Drive in the rest of the world. This includes other Engloih speeking countries before someone brings that up. There should be consistancey so using Genesis is not a good idea. --My old username 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article. Combination 11:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Halloween attractions

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

The result of the debate was already merged --Kbdank71 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Halloween attractions into Category:Halloween traditions

  • Merge, Halloween Attractions is a redundant category. The articles categorised in it (3 to date) are all trivial non notable dicdefs (ok, my opinion) and I've Prodded them. The sole reason I've proposed Merge is in case any survive prod (or a subsequent AfD if the prod is removed) or if more are added, otherwise I would have gone straight for a delete. Fiddle Faddle 06:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any that survive. One category is sufficient, and traditions is broader and makes more sense. ×Meegs 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. David Kernow 07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Halloween critters is questionable, fiddle faddle. Halloween attractions are objects, things, props. Halloween traditions are customs, for instance trick or treat. Regards the few halloween articles, categories, your deletion suggestions are, in my opinion, superfluous. The usage of the term dicdef looks errorneous to me. User:Yy-bo 18:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Halloween attractions and Category:Halloween critters are both creations of User:Yy-bo, who has been dutifully creating articles to fill them. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One does not create articles to fill a category. One creates articles that are notable and then puts them in a category. If there is no available category one then considers very carefully the category to create, but one does not create categories that are "questionable" as the creator states above. Fiddle Faddle 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per above David D. (Talk) 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Michael 23:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify if wanted, and then Delete. These don't appear to be holiday traditions. Also, they appear to be related to concerns about mercentile promotion. - Changed to Delete. See this comment by User:Yy-bo - jc37 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Merchbow 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any that survive AfD. --McGeddon 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_5&oldid=1136103517"