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. I will ask a mathematician, or WikiProject Mathematics, to assist with the post-move cleanup. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Object to speedy rename I think this deserves discussion, as, it's not really about the number zero, per the description and the contents. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk) 08:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Object to speedy rename I think this deserves discussion, as, it's not really about the number one, per the description and the contents. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk) 08:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support I don't see why the rest of the categories use the numbers and these two use the names.Duonaut(
talk |
contribs) 03:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Alternate I think these should be renamed, but I don't think they should be called "one" and "zero", as the null set is not a zero, the matrix additive identity is not a single number, the matrix multiplicative identity is not a single number. So unlike Two, Three, Four, etc, these two categories are not simply categories for the number they represent. I do not however have any good suggestions for what names they should have. --
67.70.35.44 (
talk) 07:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Partial support. The name change makes sense, but several of the articles now in
Category:Zero such as
empty set are more about nothingness than about a numerical value and should be moved to the parent category
Category:Nothing. (The alternative would be to upmerge the categories, leaving 0 as a number without a category, a strange state of affairs.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support – perhaps some articles need to be re-categorised, but this is the case with most categories.
Oculi (
talk) 10:25, 20 November 2014 (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:LGBT-related documentary films about religion
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.
Nominator's rationale: With
this successful CFD, and now,
this one, I believe we have the basis to rename the LGBT and religion docs. The key advantages would be a) the removal of "-related," reflecting a concern that these films be squarely about the topic and not just tangentially related and b) the now-established precedent courtesy of the 2nd Cfd that we don't need to repeat "topics," that LGBT and Fooian religion can be treated as a topic. I know I break with the pattern for the Judaism, but I don't know what else to do. And again, there's a community consensus that these films need to be about LGBT Jewish issues -- religiously or culturally -- over and above the fact that a documentary subject happens to be a Jew. So I'm okay with the change in this case -- though others may have a better option.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 14:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support much clearer naming convention and readily understood. Focuses the fact that the topic is the interaction of these two topics. Reduction to Judaism seems fine to me, as I expect the content most likely covers Jews from a religious perspective, not a non-religious perspective (though I may be wrong here).
SFB 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
yes I think all the current articles do address the religious aspect enough to fit under the rename, though you raise a point that the hatnote on
Judaism addresses: "For consideration of ethnic, historic and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see
Jews." Which is why the "Jews and Judaism" form is used, I'm sure. I suppose down the road we could try and create another category structure, for culturally Jewish docs, if they exist (I suspect they do).
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support, proposed title better demonstrates the intersection of the 2 subjects. (what makes a film an LGBT-related film about Christianity and not a Christianity-related film about LGBT?) –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 17:46, 23 November 2014 (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:Ragdoll Fanciers' Club International
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Recently-created circular category with one proper member and limited (or no) potential for growth.
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete unlikely that content will ever appear that would merit this category.
SFB 22:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
DElete -- Probably a NN club. If it might deserve an article (though I doubt it), but certainly nnot a category — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Peterkingiron (
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:Turkish carpets, rugs and kilims
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of
Category:Rugs and carpets. A
kilim is merely a type of flat tapestry-woven carpet or rug, and so its inclusion in the title is not essential. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 06:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support reduces redundancy and matches usual convention.
SFB 22:42, 19 November 2014 (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.
2000 births by month
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This takes the additional step by categorizing births by month of a specific year but doesn't seem too different from
Category:Births by month and day from 2006 and tries to pop up now and again. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge all to
Category:2000 births. A person's month of birth is typically
non-defining, and this type of categorization is too narrow to serve as a general "demographics" category. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 06:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to year of birth. The year of birth serves as a blunt way of grouping contemporaneous people. The month of a person's birth generally does not give any greater degree of relation between the subjects. People are generally not socially divided by month of birth, as opposed to years (e.g. school cohorts, etc). I support the continuation of the yearly birth categories as these are the better option over decade categories (which would be very large and gather people of comparatively distant ages).
SFB 22:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge: I remembered that I actually created these categories a while ago but didn't use them much more afterwards; and after reading some of the other comments, I think that I must agree.
-Fimatic (
talk |
contribs) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge birth months are not defining.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 04:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge All before our birth cats get as out of control as the death ones.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:51, 24 November 2014 (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.