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.
Comment Delete. As the article says, "College rock was the alternative rock music played on student-run university and college stations" So unlike Reggae, Alternative, Indie, Chicago Blues etc it is not a genre of music. Do we need a category scheme per what is played on radio? I think not, but am happy not to say "delete" at this stage in case I have missed something. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 08:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Changed to delete. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 10:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete not a demonstrated genre of music, seems purely subjective.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 22:30, 29 September 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:Wolf 359
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: Following on from
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 5 deletions of Sirius, Rigel, Epsilon Eridani, and Proxima Centauri, delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only 2-3 articles in each category. Minuscule categories merely hinder easy navigation to related articles.
Lithopsian (
talk) 16:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment All categories are sparcely populated but have populated subcategories. Is there a chance to merge them?
Dimadick (
talk) 17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'll respond here about the merge idea. The parent category would be an individual star. And the subcategory is a list of fiction articles that reference that star. So now you have no category about fictional references, and a category about the star itself which contains only a list of fiction articles that happens to make a passing reference to the star. I don't think it is a good idea, it just makes it harder for people to find what they are looking for.
Lithopsian (
talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Manual merge to selected parent categories where appropriate, then delete. –
FayenaticLondon 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: content of categories is already linked in the parent article and thus these are not a useful aid to navigation. The categories are unlikely to be expanded in the near future.
Praemonitus (
talk) 22:40, 25 September 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.
Roman Catholic bishops in Germany
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: rename in order to disambiguate Roman Catholic bishops in Germany from Lutheran bishops in Germany. The undesirable result of the current ambiguity is for example that
Category:Lutheran Prince-Bishops of Minden cannot be found in
Category:Bishops of Minden. After renaming we can - in this example - recreate
Category:Bishops of Minden as a parent of the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran category. (Note: this is what I've already started to do for Osnabrück, therefore Osnabrück is not part of the nomination.)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename temporarily If this proposal goes ahead, immediately recreate all categories. They should be reserved for all pre-reformation bishops (apart from the 2 sub-categories of course) to avoid either denomination claiming ownership of such bishops.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Please note thar Minden was just an example. Also please note that Germany and Italy are incomparable countries in this respect: Germany is equally Protestant as Roman Catholic while Italy is almost wholly Roman Catholic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Protestant Bishops are called Bishops just like Roman Catholic ones are. I see no need to rename
Category:Bishops of Hamburg either. —Kusma (
t·
c) 06:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
In Germany, cities with bishops of different denominations are quite rare, and so disambiguating them (especially the pre-Reformation ones) is unnecessary and against the "common name" principle. Most regions of Germany were traditionally wholly Catholic or wholly Protestant. —Kusma (
t·
c) 09:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Please note that both churches' bishoprics currently cover all of Germany, so there is e.g. a Lutheran bishop in Munich and a Roman Catholic bishop in Magdeburg.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Selectively keep -- Except there were both Lutheran and RC bishoprics for the same see, there is no need to add the disambiguator RC. An appropriate comparator might be GB, where bishops are not called Anglican bishops, except where Bishop of foo is ambiguous. When a RC hierarchy was reintroduced to GB in the mid-19th, the Catholics were careful to chose titles taken from places with no Anglican bishop, but subsequent Anglican creations have upset that scheme. For dioceses that became protestant at the Reformation or were subsequently secularised, I see no objection to them being categorised as German bishops, which would in turn be a subcat of Catholic bishops, even though that ceased to be correct at the Reformation. The category system inevitably involves such (apparent) contradictions, unless we fragment everything to an extent that we in fact deplore.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The nomination mainly aims solving the situation that Protestant and Roman Catholic bishops share the same see. The fact that all RC have been nominated is for consistency: it would be confusing if one bishopric category has an RC suffix and the other not. Previously I pointed to the category structure in the United States, which is entirely unambiguous and consistent.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree with this logic. The same applies in Ireland where there were parallel successions in the RC church and the Church of of Ireland. See
Category:Bishops of Clogher which is mainly a container for the sub-categories by both denominations.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 09:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename all per
Bishop (disambiguation). Use of the word bishop without some modifier for clarity is ambiguous. I'm interested in how the nom intends to handle categorising bishops of the early Christian church. - jc37 20:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename Due to the large number of Christian Churches that use the tile bishop, some such as
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and various Pentacostal Denominations, for local leaders, bishops should always be clearly designated as to what denomination they belong to. Any other course of action is a POV move that assumes that Lutherans, Roman Catholics and a few other denominations that claim Apostolic succession have a better right to use of such terms, a POV that directly contradicts the truth claims of some other Christian groups.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I would suggest the creation of seperate categories for bishops before the Lutheran reformation. I would accept the placement of such categories as sub-categories of categories for Roman Catholic Bishops, if there is also a relevant category for post-Reformation Catholic bishops of that diocese.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:26, 16 October 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.
European Parliament constituencies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. It's unclear what the goal is here as the nominator is for creation of categories (based on I presume a split of something else). It seems as though two editors in the end (@
Fayenatic london and
Peterkingiron:) agreed on something but I'm not seeing a full consensus for that anywhere here and I suggest that a new CFD with a more clear proposal be conducted instead to describe the intended split.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 06:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
At present I do not think that readers (or editors) will necessarily be able to easily navigate the categories due to the very great number of historic articles relating to the pre 2000 system with the numbers of articles being involved being represented in the content of the following templates:
In these cases the "Previous.." categories could contain a see also link which could direct to an appropriate version of "Category:European Parliament constituencies in .... under the FPTP voting system (to 1999)"
Better explanation needed These are all constituencies, which have/had MEPs. How they were voted in is irrelevant; they have all been voted in using the then current voting process (which can be explained elsewhere).
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 08:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Split existing categories -- The move in 1999 from FPTP to PR inevitably meant that all the old constituencies were abolished. It would therefore be appropriate to have separate
Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom 1974-99 and
Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom 1999 on. The fact that the first is a FPTP and the second PR can conveniently be dealt with in a head note. I am not clear what the correct start date for the first one is and this may need correcting. Placing the full explanation in the title, creates over-long category names: there is much merit in keeping them short.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I had not thought too hard about parenting. I agree that we do not need a post-1999 Scotland category, since Scotland is a single constituency. However, I wonder whether they all cannot be parented by one UK category, holding a Northern Ireland article (or two), three pre-1999 categories for the other three home countries, one post-1999 England category and two post-1999 articles for Scotland and Wales. That is at most eight items, which is far from excessive for one category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Agreed -- I think that would be a satisfactory outcome.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Pardon me for not reading
user:Oculi's earlier suggestion properly. This is the same structure, just a slightly different name. –
FayenaticLondon 20:11, 29 November 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:New England Association of Schools and Colleges
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.
Oppose for Now This category was poorly categorized, but it is one of the
Regional accreditation bodies where the US government approves student loans for colleges and, typically, you can only easily transfer credits between regionally accredited schools (national accreditation is seen as inferior) and many states only recognize degrees for regulated industries from one of these schools. This may still be non-defining, but it comes a heck of lot closer than the CCC which is basically an industry trade group. I would favor opening a larger nomination of the
Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association tree.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I am sure that the association is a worthy and important body, but that does not mean that every college accredited by it (or member of it) needs a category. We have deleted a lot of such "university association membership" categories. No objection to listifying, if thought useful.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Being part of this group is only temporarily defining. First off, because many of these organizations pre-date the formation of the Accredadation council in question. Then there is the fact others may have existed for several years while the accrediting body existed and not been members. Also, due to the rules of categorization, if a member organization looses accredadation, we would still need to leave it in the category. A list can better cover when and under what status organizations were covered. I would also point out that transfering credit between regionally accredited schools is not gauranteed. I transfered between two not only regionally accredited schools but top-tier research universities and still had some credits declined. Here in Michigan there is a set of agreements to make transfering between colleges and universities in the state easier, but the institutions are part of an accredadation group that covers many more states.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:32, 16 October 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:Organizations named after Taras Shevchenko
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.
Oppose - It's a useful set of categories that testifies to the significance of a historical figure. But if one is to go so far as to say that we should not have any categories of things named after people, we would need to remove such categories as
Category:Asteroids named for people as well.--
Sanya3 (
talk) 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)--
Sanya3 (
talk) 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:SHAREDNAME. Being named for Historical Figure X is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the things so named — accordingly, this type of information should be handled as a list rather than a category.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:31, 1 October 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:Cultural history of Russia
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.
Oppose. Many countries have a 'cultural history' category, see
Category:Cultural history by country. I suppose that nearly everything in
Category:Russian culture that is not about current Russian culture can be put in the nominated category. I've started populating the category with two articles for the time being.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, I've seen it and it doesn't particularly make any sense. Ethnic culture is embedded in a history, so how do you propose to separate 'current' culture in any country's culture from 'historic' culture? What is meant by 'current culture' in any given nation-state? --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 09:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree that culture in general (as a concept) is embedded in history, but many articles are about particular manifestations of culture, which are either still ongoing or concluded in the past (i.e. history in the latter case).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No, that's actually known as 'history' and slots comfortably into 'History of [insert relevant subject here]". Anything 'finished' fits neatly into the 'Cultural history' category. Please tell me what subjects belong in a 'current culture of Russia' category. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 10:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion. BTW, why did you remove "List of cultural icons of Russia" and the category "Russian traditions" from this category? The parent category has many different countries in it, and I think that Russia should belong in it also. A good series of articles from the University of London that explains what "Cultural history" means is
here, and how it is different than just "History" and "Culture". They explain it way better than I ever could.
Funandtrvl (
talk) 19:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Why are you pointing to a single essay discussing a complex field as if it were an absolute academic mainstream definition? You're reducing the argument to
WP:OR. As regards the removal from those articles, you're welcome to reinstate them once it's been established that this form of nomenclature for categories actually makes sense. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 00:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Why do you think that Russia should not have its own category under "Cultural history by country"? I don't agree that whatever relates to Russia should just be categorized under the general "Cultural history" category.
Funandtrvl (
talk) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You've missed the point of what I'm arguing: being that I consider "Category:Cultural history of [name of country inserted here]" as being a strange category, full stop. When I find a moment, I'm going to submit this category convention for discussion. I have no objections to such a category for Russia, per se, as it is being used for other countries/nation-states. I simply see the entire category structure as being overkill. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 00:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)reply
So you are saying that "Cultural history of Russia" is the same thing as "Russian culture"? And that the "Cultural history" category should just have everything from every country in there?
Funandtrvl (
talk) 20:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I fully agree with Iryna Harpy on this topic, and in particular this comment. Merge or delete depending on if there are any outlying articles. —
烏Γ(
kaw), 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No, there are no outlying articles. The category has only just been created. It was merely beginning to used to substitute the "Russian culture" cat in on a couple articles (which I reverted, then brought it here to discuss). Therefore, in answer to Funandtrvl, that's essentially what I'm saying: it's merely a complicated convolution of a pre-existing category. Creating a number of varients on a fundamental category and populating them is excessive. How many different ways of saying the same thing is useful or informative? --
Iryna Harpy (
talk) 04:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Would it make more sense to have the parent category be "[[Nationality] cultural history]"? Such that instead of "Cultural history of Russia", to change it to "Russian cultural history", and that being a sub-category of "History of Russia" and "Russian culture"?
Funandtrvl (
talk) 16:14, 29 September 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.