From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 21 April 23 >

April 22

Category:Fictional Argentinian people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Appears to duplicate Category:Fictional Argentine people. Only one article. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:19, 22 April 2019 (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:Life imitating art

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Category:Life imitating art

Category:Ave Maria University alumni

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I believe everyone currently in this category is a graduate of the law school rather than the university (see below). gnu 57 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom, without prejudice for the recreation of the incumbent category if and when eligible content shows up. Strictly speaking, the new category could be created and content moved there by anyone per WP:BOLD, and the empty category speedy deleted without prejudice per WP:C1. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (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:Ave Maria University faculty

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: split is approved. – Fayenatic London 15:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The two schools are separate institutions, with different faculty and alumni (see below). gnu 57 20:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: you don't really need CfD for that. Feel free to create the new category and move all appropriate content there. If they are separate entities, this move is uncontroversial and you are the best placed to do that. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (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:Ave Maria University

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: split is approved. – Fayenatic London 15:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The two schools are separate institutions, with different faculty and alumni. gnu 57 20:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - this (and the ones above) can be done without a cfd. Oculi ( talk) 09:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Comment: you don't really need CfD for that. Feel free to create the new category and move all appropriate content there. If they are separate entities, this move is uncontroversial and you are the best placed to do that. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    Sorry about that, I thought that I needed to go through CfD. I think that I've got everything sorted now—should these be speedily closed? Cheers, gnu 57 18:32, 23 April 2019 (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:Irish supercentenarians

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: dual merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Let's see if I can do it right this time... this category currently consists of two pages, one a biography and one a redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. Not nearly enough for a category. This should therefore be upmerged into the supercentenarians category, where they fit (plus both pages and the list of Irish supercentenarians page should be added to Category:Irish centenarians). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (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:Films about Roman 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: do not rename. MER-C 19:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C: Category:Catholic media, Category:Catholic Church. Furthermore, c.f. formulas of Category:Catholic Church in fiction, Category:Church councils accepted by the Catholic Church, Category:Tribunals of the Catholic Church, etc. No other category exists with the formula "Roman Catholicism". Roman Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church - so also WP:C2D could be considered as rationale. Follow-up on stall on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_requests, itself a follow-up on a categories for discussion nomination, both my own requests which ended with no consensus. The difference between this and the former no consensus nomination is that this nomination comes collectively with both relevant categories nominated, and with enhanced rationale for hypothetical discussion. PPEMES ( talk) 13:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I dropped category of said film. However, if you don't either drop the category from the articles that you deem may not qualify, or else create distinct article Roman Catholicism, how are we to make sense of your argument? PPEMES ( talk) 15:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I have no objection to a rename to Category:Films about Catholicism and the creation of subcats for the the more specific Catholic Church. I don't see any justification for 'dropping' articles correctly placed in the nominated category. Oculi ( talk) 17:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, Catholic Church is a subtopic of Catholicism (namely, its most important institute). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It's nice when nominations such as this result in users proposing additions categories to improve Wikipedia. If we go back to this nomination, however, what is your reason to keep this category in question corresponding with the redirect Roman Catholicism rather than to its indirect main article Catholic Church? PPEMES ( talk) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The target of a redirect is completely irrelevant. Editors have told Chicbyaccident/PPEMES this countless times at cfd. Catholicism is general, Catholic Church is specific. Oculi ( talk) 19:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Actually I can't recall anyone has ever said that the rule is for categories to be named in deviation from that of their main articles? PPEMES ( talk) 20:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
There is no deviation here, as there is afaik no main article for catholic-themed films. Considering Catholic Church the main article for the topic would be stretching WP:C2D beyond the point of rupture. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Well. You want there to be hundreds of consistant categories, but this one deviate. And then you seem to imply that others are obstructing. I'm sorry that I can't get my head around it. PPEMES ( talk) 10:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
No inconsistency at all, there is a large Category:Catholicism tree, which is very similar to Category:Christianity, Category:Protestantism, Category:Islam etc. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Is there a Roman Catholicism tree, that which is in question here? PPEMES ( talk) 10:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
This propososal concerns renaming Category:Films about Roman Catholicism to Category:Films about the Catholic Church. You're free to add other categories, such as Category:Apples in Orange County (which possibly this could be part of Category:Fruits in Californa). However, regarding renaming Category:Films about Roman Catholicism to Category:Films about the Catholic Church, what would be a reason to not pursue this very rename, please, in consistancy with the full category tree of hundreds of other categories in Category:Catholic Church, pertaing to the Catholic Church main article? But instead keeping it at "Roman Catholicism"? I'm trying to understand. PPEMES ( talk) 12:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • That is exactly what we discussed many times before, because this category is not restricted to films about the Catholic Church as an institute, but more broadly about Catholic people, their beliefs and their practices. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Let's say we did accept that phenomenological model - then none of them would pertain to this category. Are you thus saying that the category should be deleted? PPEMES ( talk) 13:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Then what " Roman Catholicism" does the category pertain to, if not the entity which that article title redirects to? PPEMES ( talk) 13:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
When I inquired about this comment of Oculi on the user's talk page, I noticed that this inquiry was manually archived without reply a couple of days later. Thanks. PPEMES ( talk) 11:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Oppose with prejudice for renomination to the same target by the same user for the next 5 years. Per everything that's been said in the September 2018 CfD, almost none of these films are about the Church as an organization, but rather about various subjects in the wide context of (Roman) Catholicism. The no consensus close was because editors were split between renaming to Films about Catholicism or keeping Films about Roman Catholicism, not a single editor agreed with you on the ...Catholic Church target. Attempting to restart the same unchanged discussion 6 months after the previous close is WP:gaming the system. Doing so without self-disclosing that you were the nominator of the previous discussion under a different user name, despite being warned against such behaviour at least here and here, is not very civil. May I kindly suggest you drop the stick on this one? Place Clichy ( talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I notice that multiple users assert that " Roman Catholicism" is a valid entity to refer to when naming these two exceptionate categories, despite that the article realm offers no such reference. If we boil it down, I fail to see the difference between that and a majority-supported "in categories for discussion"-referred WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
This nomination was intended as an enhanced follow-up proposal on a previous one with weak rationale and no consensus.
Perhaps fewer or none of the articles are motivated in this category - in that case, though, shouldn't that rather mean that this category should be deleted? It bugs me to see the rationale for a keep on these exceptionate two categories, here and below, other than a fundamentally unexplained majority push.
In essence: if readers want to find out about films that has the slightest to do with the Catholic Church, this seems to be the category (since " Roman Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church). If a film doesn't have anything to do with the Catholic Church, why should it even be categorised a an exceptionately named category named after a redirect of Catholic Church? Bottom line, I fail to see any of the rationales presented as to how we help the readers to keep the name of these categories to one of several redirects of the Catholic Church, other than a majority push. To add to this, films may be negative, and now it's like we're not categorising films in an accurate way, making it fuzzy for the readers. I fail to see how this serves a critical reader, well, any reader? I may be wanting to search for negative films about the Catholic Church, but now I didn't know that for films, of all things, I am expected to exceptionately search for films about Roman Catholicism.
Now, I wouldn't mind a category rationale which referred to " Roman Catholicism" (or " Catholicism") if that was indeed an article that spoke about how "Roman Catholicism is the religion, the Roman Catholic Church is the institution", "which have nothing to with its priests and canon laws", as exemplified by voters. It's the missing link that bugs me.
However, I also recognise that inquiring about this is not welcome. I'd rather not participate if it gets personal. So in that case, I thank you. PPEMES ( talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It is a big misunderstanding that using a term not having a WP article is OR. The decisive criterion for OR is whether or not reliable sources exist using the term. Every dictionary will contain "Catholicism", to begin with. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Roman Catholicism is the religion, the Roman Catholic Church is the institution. Not all films or words about Catholicism deal with the institution of the Catholic church. Inter&anthro ( talk) 15:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The church itself is a minor sub-topic to Catholicism and the various Catholic Christians, which have nothing to with its priests and canon laws. Dimadick ( talk) 17:39, 23 April 2019 (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:Documentary films about Roman 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: do not rename. MER-C 19:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per above. PPEMES ( talk) 13:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per above. Oculi ( talk) 09:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per above, with prejudice for renomination to the same target by the same user for the next 5 years. Place Clichy ( talk) 15:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The Church is a sub-topic, not a parent. Dimadick ( talk) 17:40, 23 April 2019 (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:Conversion of mosques into public buildings.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 19:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Move sub-cat into parent, then delete the category. The four articles in this category are all within Category:Mosques destroyed by communists. Moreover, the category name does not fit the outcomes for each building (barracks, now derelict; minaret destroyed, later restored; mausoleum; ruin). – Fayenatic London 13:11, 22 April 2019 (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:Nepalese writers by genre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 07:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one subcategory Rathfelder ( talk) 12:18, 22 April 2019 (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 laicized Roman Catholic bishops

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The current members of this category, Theodore Edgar McCarrick and Józef Wesołowski, are both alleged child sex offenders who have not self-identified as gay. In any case, I think that this is a non-notable intersection by sexual orientation, unless there exist bishops who were laicized specifically for their orientation/gender identity rather than for sex crimes or other misconduct. gnu 57 12:09, 22 April 2019 (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:People from Latvia

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: renamed. MER-C 19:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale:Latvia has been divided geographically in several different ways. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:31, 22 April 2019 (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:People from Kuldīga District

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: only one article Rathfelder ( talk) 10:30, 22 April 2019 (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:People by cultural region in Latvia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Category:People by cultural region in Latvia

Category:Video games with an ESRB M rating

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 19:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OVERCAT. A category like this is far too broad. It clearly makes sense since it purely denotes video games that carry or have carried the ESRB M rating. However, I fail to see any practical reason for this category, as it seems rather trivial. If a category like this were to stay, it should include thousands, if not tens of thousands, of items, and those items as articles should all reference the games' ratings. Meanwhile, concrete and practical categories like Xbox One games and PlayStation 4 games should stay. Gamingforfun 365 07:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We don't categorize video games by rating, as far as I know. Brandmeister talk 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neither films, nor video games are categorized by rating schemes. Dimadick ( talk) 17:42, 23 April 2019 (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:Easter traditions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Category:Easter traditions

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_22&oldid=901046406"