Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 26

< November 25 November 27 >

November 26

Category:People of the MIT

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 to Category:People of the National Intelligence Organization (Turkey) as there are no objections and it clearly expresses the idea of the other proposal (Turkish National Intelligence Organization). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People of the MIT ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I moved its contents to Category:Turkish spies, in accordance with templates for other countries. Adoniscik(t, c) 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. I retract the nomination, and will retag the articles. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was going to close this out per Adoniscik's retraction, but if this category is to be kept it needs to be renamed. We generally avoid initialisms in Category names -- and in addition, "MIT" is likely to be confused with the University. Cgingold (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you use the English expansion or the native one? --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Turkish" part is redundant; no other country has an NIO. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise, it might be superfluous, but it's not redundant. However, it's only superfluous to the tiny percentage of readers (mostly Turkish) who happen to know that the "National Intelligence Organization" is a Turkish intelligence agency. Having been rendered into English, it's far more likely to be misperceived as being the intelligence agency of an English-speaking country. In any event, there's no harm and a real benefit to readers when the Category name includes an indication of the country involved. So I'm inclined to support CeeGee's suggestion of Category:People of the Turkish National Intelligence Organization, unless there's a better alternative. Cgingold (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2008 (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:Caymanian people of Jamaican descent

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 the first listed, merge the rest into Category:British people of Jamaican descent Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Caymanian people of Jamaican descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jamaican British people by occupation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jamaican English people by occupation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jamaican English musicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Prime examples of overcategorisation based on narrow intersections. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2008 (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:Christian organizations established in the 1st century

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 organizations, rename "Diocesees" to "Dioceses". the wub "?!" 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian organizations established in the 1st century ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Category:Diocesees established in the 1st century ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete because these categories are inherently unstable and are ripe for abuse of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There is much disagreement among historians on what exactly happened in the very early days of Christianity, and which sects coalesced into official organizations (and thus dioceses) at what times. I've already removed all of the articles that were in the second category, as none of them had any sources, and I've removed a few articles from the Christian organizations category because those articles specifically cited scholars which disagreed that the organization was established in the 1st century (although other scholars were cited as saying that the org was established then). I think these categories are an invitation for edit-warring and POV problems. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note well: Karanacs has emptyed these two categories (contra Wikipedia's category deletion policy) making a fair consideration most difficult at best. --Carlaude (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the articles listed in those categories that I removed either a) had no sources establishing that the category was appropriate or b) had sources explicitly disputing the category. If sources were to be established, please feel free to add those articles back to the category. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should seek to clean out categories OR seek to have categories deleted but not both at the same time. Hence the policy.--Carlaude (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And RCC is certainly sourced - see the current notes 12-14, 24-26. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we removed the category:Religious organizations established in the 1st century, how do we know when we can have such a nonPOV category? The 2nd century? the 5th century? the 10th? --Carlaude (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until he puts 'em back this is his edit history --Carlaude (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first category, I removed Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church because their establishment dates are disputed. In the second, I removed Roman Catholic Diocese of Cartagena, Roman Catholic Diocese of Guadix, Patriarchate of Aquileia, Roman Catholic Diocese of Pavia, and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Naples - besides the fact that they were not sourced, if it is disputed that the RCC and Orthodox Churches were established in the 1st century then it seems impossible that their dioceses would have been established then; there may have been a church community there at the time (if sources ever found), but would not have been a diocese. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about church history? When the diocesees were founded they were not know as the Roman Catholic Diocese of.
So according to your rules when can diocese be founded? hmmm? --Carlaude (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Roman Catholic" Archdiocese of Pavia is truly the Archdiocese of Pavia as the "Eastern Orthodox" Archdiocese of Athens is the Archdiocese of Athens. No matter what the diocese, (if it was founded before the schism), you could refer to it without "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" simply because together, all Orthodox dioceses and all Catholic dioceses form what was the "mother church" before the schism, and that is accepted by both RC and EO. We simply put RC or EO to clarify where the diocese belongs now, for the sake of clarity. Yet the continuation is unbroken.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (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:Pescetarianism

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pescetarianism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no apparent growth potential. Otto4711 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2008 (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:Dutch pescetarians

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Dutch pescetarians to Category:Pescetarians
Nominator's rationale: Merge - single-item category with no clear growth potential. The parent is not so large that splitting by nationality is warranted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2008 (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:Paris by Night singers

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 Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Paris by Night singers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance/venue overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2008 (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:Nash Bridges

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. Wizardman 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nash Bridges ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the improper actor by series entries, there is insufficient material to warrant the category. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (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:Hong Kong Americans

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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hong Kong Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Chinese Americans from Hong Kong is exactly the same and this category is an unnecessary, confusing duplicate.Misterx2000 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2008 (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:English basketball players

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 current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:English basketball players to Category:English basketballers
Nominator's rationale: I was quite sure of this before googling the two terms and seeing the former more common in the U.K. Nonetheless, what do others think? (I m willing to nominate all British and Irish cat pages should discussion here suggests that to be warranted.) Mayumashu (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2008 (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:Russian Ministers of Defense

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 to Category:Defence ministers of Russia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Russian Ministers of Defense to Category:Russian Ministers of Defence
Nominator's rationale: As per http://www.mil.ru/eng and http://www.mil.ru/eng/12005/12061/index.shtml, the Ministry is known in English as the Ministry of Defence (not Defense), and the Minister is known as the Minister of Defence (not Defense). Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:27, 26 November 2008 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_26