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: The commoner usage
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge (or Reverse Merge) I actually think PCP has become the dominant term in the US but it makes no sense to divide these biography categories between the two. This is one of the rare times we can't blindly defer to the article space since we have both
General practitioner and
Primary care physician.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge (or Reverse Merge) and put a category redirect into the other.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 14:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I think I might prefer to go with this suggestion.
Twiceuponatime (
talk) 09:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd favor that as well. There may be a regional English usage issue here.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 11:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Regional English usage is definitely the problem with several of the medical occupations. The terms Doctor and Physician are used differently in different countries.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The first contains two American bios. The second is a general category that should largely be a container. Instead merge to
Category:American physicians or REname to
Category:American primary care physicians, making that a subcat of
Category:American physicians and GPs by nationality. We have got an ENGVAR issue here, which we seem to have resolved by calling them all GPs, the British usage, perhaps with the odd cat-redirect.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (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:Orthopaedists
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: Complete overlap. Orthopedic surgeon is the commoner term.
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge (or Reverse Merge) In the article space, both terms redirect to
Orthopedic surgery so no preference on the name. These biography articles should all be in one category tree though.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. If Orthopaedists is a common American term, we need to leave a catpredirect.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:51, 29 October 2017 (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:Protestant denominational families
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.
ℯxplicit 01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
If Protestantism is "arguably a Christian denominational family" then Protestantism is even more arguably not a Christian denominational family. Many people will claim that their group (currently under Protestant) is not even part of Protestantism. So, if you tell these people that merely one little part of Protestantism it will be worse. Protestantism is really more of a catch-all term "not anything else" and there is much more variety within Protestantism than any non-Protestant denominational family.
Do not forget the purpose of the category tree (is not to inform directly, but) is only help people find the articles they want to find. Making people look in "Protestant" will certainly not help if them, if they do not even think of their own group as Protestant. tahcchat 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
There is an issue with Protestantism in the sense that its boundaries are not fully clear. Does Anglicanism belong to Protestantism? Does Evangelicalism belong to it, or the Pentecostal movement? Different people have different opinions about that. I'm not totally convinced that this should lead to an end of the Protestantism category tree, since we may include subcategories of denominations that are counted as Protestant by some sources. But if there is going to be consensus about dissolving the Protestantism tree then there should be a broader proposal on how to operationalize that (since there are so many Protestant categories). Just nominating this one category is not a good idea.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, and those issues aren't better solved by having more than one similar categories.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The target has splits in several different directions, so that making the 15 families direct children of the target would complicate the tree. So do not see where NPOV or any other issues raised by the nom become relevant to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep a little bit of OR is involved but not much. And it's a very beneficial navigational aid. Worth the risk.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Laurel Lodged nailed it. By our rules the container isn't entirely pretty (hence the nomination) but its population is awesome.
gidonb (
talk) 09:22, 22 November 2017 (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:History of Catholicism by country
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, with no prejudice against establishing a History of Catholicism category tree if there is sufficient content to populate it. While the point is valid that not all Catholicism is about the Catholic Church, the arguments to rename (including that the proposed name aligns with
Category:History of the Catholic Church and
History of the Catholic Church) are more compelling. (@
Chicbyaccident:, please
ping me whether will you be nominating the subcategories for renaming.) --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: In
WP:PRECISE reflection to its actual scope - subcategories and articles. Please note that there currently is no such category, which ought to exist. Also per
WP:CONSISTENCY with its category info text.
Catholicism in the article realm is a redirect.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Create subcategory instead of rename. This is a topic on which nominator on which I keep in disagreement with nominator (in friendly disagreement, I suppose), as I don't agree that all Catholicism is about the Catholic Church. For example
Catholic spirituality,
Catholic culture, Catholic political parties, Catholic trade unions etc etc are not about the Catholic Church as such.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
It would go too far to split this for every country. Instead weak oppose, I would rather keep the category name as is, with a broader scope, and to keep consistency with sibling categories such as
Category:History of Protestantism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Support the nom. But alsoagree with Marco. However, in this case, the reality is that all sub-cats by country are only to do with the Catholic Church. There is none for the Netherlands. If one is created then
Category:History of the Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands could be a good category to create. Following that creation, it would then be appropriate to create
Category:History of Catholicism in the Netherlands. But we're not there yet. So for the moment, let the noms proceed without prejudice as to their later re-creation.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per leading article.
gidonb (
talk) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (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:History of Catholicism by continent
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, without with no prejudice against establishing a History of Catholicism by continent category tree if there is sufficient content to populate it. There was also support (but not a consensus) for doing away with the continental split altogether, which could be revisited in a subsequent nomination (that should include child categories). --
Black Falcon(
talk) 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: In
WP:PRECISE reflection to its subcategories and contents. Please note that there currently is no
History of Catholicism standalone article for the very same reasons that there should hardly be a such category (other than redirect in the both cases). Please consult instead
Catholic Church by country.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 15:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
It may go too far to split this per continent. Instead weak oppose, I would rather keep the category name as is, with a broader scope, and to keep consistency with sibling categories such as
Category:History of Protestantism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Procedural Comment Despite my vote above, I'm now wondering if this nom proceed without the children being first nominated for name changes per tahc above.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per leading article. Against deletion as the continents allow for spatial specificity where no country categories are justified.
gidonb (
talk) 04:07, 22 November 2017 (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:Orders, decorations, and medals honoring women
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.
Rename as simple and covering the correct meaning. Please nominate the other categories as well.
gidonb (
talk) 04:13, 22 November 2017 (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:Catholicism-related controversies
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
WP:Precise. Please see the scope. It exclusively pertains to this subject. We also don't have this category. So clearly a category precision renaming issue. For included articles that may mistakingly not pertain to the
Category:Catholic Church directly or indirectly, they ought to be relocated anyhow.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Create subcategory instead of rename. Same as above.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Sorry, there is a consensus on
Catholicism, and it doesn't qualify as an article but is a redirect. Why should the category tree follow other logic, please? I would rather consider
WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 14:19, 11 November 2017 (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:Catholic denominations
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 as POV and pointy. While
Category:Catholic denominations has a less than clear purpose,
Category:Catholic denominations is part of a clear category system for all Christian denominations. The only problem is that the RCC (like a number of other groups--see the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) claims to be the only real Christian denomination. Since Wikipedia is NPOV it cannot support this
WP:POINTy merge on the part of Chicbyaccident to make Wikipedia show only the RCC POV. If we wanted to merge instead
Category:Catholicism to
Category:Catholic denominations then that seems fine. tahcchat 15:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Support original nomination, oppose alternative. Support original nomination since there are in fact just two subcats that really belong here (Roman Catholic Church and independent Catholic denominations) while all four subcats may well belong in
Category:Catholicism. Oppose alternative because Catholicism is not only a catch-all term for different nominations but also for a wider scope than just churches, so
Category:Catholicism should definitely be kept. See also a couple of discussions above, on this same page.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
While I agree that Anglo-Catholicism is not a denomination, there are big problems with your support original nomination. A category should definitely be kept if it is part of a larger category system, even if it has just two sub-cats. To break this standard Wikipedia practice would only be a POV move to support RCC theology (per above).
They are called 'independent' rather than 'denomination' which means it would probably not be as problematic if Catholicism wouldn't appear in the denominations tree. I may be wrong but I have the impression that in common language the word 'denomination' is primarily used within the context of Protestantism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Even if it were so that Catholic denominations fail to use the term "denomination," it would not make them any less a family of denominations. If, however, you think of another term for denominational families that you like better for both Catholicism and Protestantism, just propose it as a change. tahcchat 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't see a problem with the term denomination here. It's "Catholic denomination" that's a problematic combination, since it doesn't have no counterpart in the article realm and thus borders
WP:OR.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The
Handbook of Denominations in the United States is a standard reference book you can find in an public library. Your think that the RCC cannot be called a denomination then you should give us some RSs to that fact. It currently appears to be merely your POV, and OR. tahcchat 21:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Let's not get distracted. The starting point was that merging
Category:Catholicism into
Category:Catholic denominations is not a good idea because Catholicism is broader than Catholic denominations and afacis that argument is still in place.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No that is not the starting point-- it is only your POV.
The starting point is that Catholic denominations needs to be part category system for all Christian denominations-- so long as Catholicism are still part of Christianity. If you want to try to claim that they are not part of Christianity, then you can try, but let us not have any of this talk about them not being denominations. tahcchat 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support I don't usually favour fudges in names, but in this case, I prudent fudge is justified.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (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:Eastern Catholicism
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. No reason was offered for naming this category to a different format from its subcats such as
Category:History of Eastern Catholicism. If it was intended that they should be renamed too, they should have been tagged and listed as part of a group nomination. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I guess so? You're free to contribute in order to fill in any gaps you observe, though. For the rest,
WP:NOTFINISHED.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I have added a note on that this ought to be done as well. Not sure how to go about formally proposing multiples entries in this same proposal, though. If anyone knows how to do that, please feel free to go ahead in this very proposal.
Chicbyaccident (
talk) 13:27, 4 December 2017 (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:Website article topics with top-level domain names
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. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 21:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These are very unusually titled categories and it's unclear what they are intended to contain and how they are intended to fit into the category structure. DexDor(talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:SHAREDNAME. Sure, government websites tend to end in *.gov but we have exceptions like
drba.net,
navy.mil, and
philasd.org. Better to category websites by what they are rather than how they're named.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:47, 25 October 2017 (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:Shinto in Asia
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: /Upmerge the single article. As Shinto is essentially the folk religion of Japan and this basically reproduces
Category:Shinto by country. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 06:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Upmerge to where? If we're fitting this into the "by country" structure it looks to me as though the one article needs to go into a "in Singapore" category.
Mangoe (
talk) 13:57, 24 October 2017 (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:Maria-Chapdelaine
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 21:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I cannot fathom why anybody ever thought naming the category this way, or arbitrarily moving the head article from its prior title, was a good idea -- without the "Regional County Municipality" for disambiguation purposes, the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name is not the MRC, but the
Louis Hémon novel Maria Chapdelaine and its multiple film adaptations. Furthermore, virtually all Quebec MRCs have the "Regional County Municipality" clarifier in both the page title and the associated category if there is one.
Bearcat (
talk) 05:02, 24 October 2017 (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:Engineer characters in video games
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: Not a common theme in video games
JDDJS (
talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom. A category with 3 articles is typically too small by Wikipedia standards. It may have scope for expansion, but I an not that familiar with the subject.
Dimadick (
talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Engineers I can think of who have their own article but aren't included in the category:
Otacon. Engineers who are just redirects but might merit inclusion:
Engineer (Team Fortress 2),
Torbjörn (Overwatch). It kind of toes the line, but I feel like it could have potential for expansion.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 01:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The category appears incomplete and merits expansion. There are many other engineers listed at
list of fictional scientists and engineers in the "video games" section including ones with their own articles like
Otacon and
Tails (character). Clearly a common theme in video games, though not incredibly so.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 02:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
ZXCVBNM The
list of fictional scientists and engineers video game section is completely unsourced. How many of the characters are explicitly called engineers, and are not just determined to be engineers by original research? For example, while I haven't played every Sonic game, in the ones I have played, I never remember anybody explicitly calling him an engineer. Yeah, he invents things and is very good at fixing mechanical machines, but he's already in
Category:Inventor characters in video games and
Category:Fictional mechanics to cover that. I have the feeling this is the case for a lot of the other characters listed on the page.
JDDJS (
talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay, after cleaning up the list with only mentions from RS it thins it out a lot. So I'll change my vote to upmerge.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 03:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Question meanwhile the category contains 13 articles instead of 3, this is no longer a case of
WP:SMALLCAT, is it?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle I removed the characters that are never actually said to be engineers, and there are now only 9 pages in the cat, of which, more than half are redirects. Still no reason to not upmerge.
JDDJS (
talk) 20:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 01:49, 24 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who deny any involvement with the cabal
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.
Delete per nom - pointless category
JarrahTree 14:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a single-user
joke category—the sentiment can be expressed on the user page (via userbox, {{fmbox}}, or some other notice) without generating a category grouping. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:20, 26 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians with... oh, you get the idea
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.
Delete per nom - whimsical nonsense
JarrahTree 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a single-user
joke/nonsense category—the sentiment can be expressed on the user page (via userbox, {{fmbox}}, or some other notice) without generating a category grouping. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:21, 26 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who play Osu!
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: Violates
WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly facilitate collaboration. It does not help the encyclopedia to categorize users who play particular games. Extensive precedent to delete these categories; see
1;
2;
3.
VegaDark (
talk) 00:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Yes I made the page. No one uses it anyway. You can go ahead and delete it.
LakesideMiners (
talk) 12:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - no functional usage as a category
JarrahTree 14:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as having an
overly narrow scope. Even if playing a game implied an interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 05:22, 26 October 2017 (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.