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. Seems like a reasonable way to help avoid confusion. For the sake of consistency, though, shouldn't we change all of those in Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians by nationality? The American, Canadian, Australian ones, etc. I realise the same problem with ambiguity may not exist for the other ones, but it might seem strange to have some named one way and the others named the other way. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Please sort out definitions first. Membership implies formal spiritual communion of the churches (not individual worshippers); mainstream national Eastern Orthodox churches may be in spiritual communion with each other and recognize spiritual seniority of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Breakaway Orthodox denominations (Old Believers etc.) largely remain Orthodox (some are not, some are even not Christian anymore) but they are not members of the mainstream Orthodox organization. The churches themselves have no formal membership for the laity.
Like Good Ol'factory I would also like to draw attention to the very definition of the categories. What do they mean now and what would they mean as proposed? Does fooian refer to ethnicity, citizenship, geographical location of a person or geographical identification of the Church? Where would you place an Austrian citizen of Slovenian minority who lives in Ukraine and attends a Russian Orthodox church there? NVO (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there membership for the laity is similar to the RCs-- mainly thus the baptisted are members-- but if you have information otherwise we would be glad have you point it out.
I also don't see any relivance to state of the different Eastern Orthodox bodies relationship to each other. Many Lutheran bodies to not have have full communion with each other but we still have Category:Romanian Lutherans, etc.
In fact your issue seems to be with the categories themselves-- not what they a named or renamed. To restate, we could name them something else but am not sure what name-- if any-- would be preferable to you. Carlaude:Talk04:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, no membership for the laity. The spectrum of who are Christians? from a person's point of view is quite wide, on one end there are people who simply identify themselves as such (with or without baptism). On the other end are people who regularly attend confession and communion rituals. The latter are members of a congregation (not the Church). NVO (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians from Albania, et al. The construction is not unlike "Members of monarchism" or "Members of heliocentrism," or for that matter "Members of Roman Catholicism." People might be called members of the Catholic Church, but not of the practice of Catholicism. If anything, we should adopt the format of Category:Baptists from the United States, a topic which has the same issue— would "American Baptists" refer to members of either of the denominations called American Baptist, or include Americans who are Southern Baptists, Regular Baptists, etc.? As for the meaning of Fooian, it should be noted that there is no "Christians by ethnicity" tree, only Category:Christians by nationality, and this too is clarified by the use of "from," a construction widely if unevenly used throughout WP for people by place. Category:Oriental Orthodox Christians is due for similar treatment. But considering the vast majority of Christians by nationality is unproblematically Fooian Boos, I won't press for the entire branch to be converted (no pun intended).- choster (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"From" is problematic considering the changes in borders, statehood, emigration and all that EE chaos. Christians from former Yugoslavia are now Christians of Croatia, Serbia, United States etc. NVO (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Eastern Orthodox Christians from Foo per Choster. The nom's phrasing doesn't make any sense, as a practitioner of a religion is not necessarily a "member" of anything; if they are a member, it would be of a particular brick and mortar church, not of a religion as a whole. Postdlf (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Eastern Orthodox Christians from Foo per Choster. A rename is needed and no-one seems to have objected to this formulation (except in cases which are difficult anyway, such as Bosnian Serb converts to the Greek Orthodox Church now living in Macedonia). Occuli (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (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.
World War II frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States
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 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.
Mine warfare vessels 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 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:Dark Age of Comic Books
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 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:Sport teams that have filed for bankruptcy
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: Over-categorisation, non-defining. Are we going to have a category for every fact that appears in the article or are we just going to state it in the article? DoubleBlue (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've an interest, as a supporter of a football club possibly weeks away from this situation. There's been a variety of recent situations and various outcomes (ACF Fiorentina in Italy, Southampton F.C. in England, Airdrieonians F.C. and Livingston F.C. in Scotland) and it could be useful to navigate between them. That said, the “bankruptcy” of the name is imprecise: US Chapter 11 seems closer to UK Administration (law) for example; and some articles in the category seem to be more about the personal bankruptcy of a proprietor than the club as such. Possible rename to something like “Sporting clubs with a legal insolvency finding against them” etc? AllyD (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was part of my concern, I guess. As far as I know, the BC Lions, for example, have never been bankrupt but a former owner was and the league took back the team and sold it. Perhaps these should really be simply under the companies in countries categories really to keep it clearer with the different legal statutes and remove instances where the team itself has never been bankrupt. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete per above and nom. If we see a family of bankruptcies by industry forming, we can revisit it, but right now this is an outlier and a tricky one, for the reasons above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. As a category its grouping by a largely non-defining characteristic, and also falls foul of the legal niceties above. As a list those variants on administration and bankruptcy can be dealt with in separate sections of a list article, and it may provide a useful reference. Grutness...wha?23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially since the meaning of "have filed for bankruptcy" is imprecise and has variable meanings depending on what legal jurisdiction is in question. This would really require citations and commentary to explain, since each case is unique. Listifying is fine, if someone will do it. Often when sent to WP:CFDWM for listification they can sit there for months and no one does it. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:51, 14 October 2009 (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:Living 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 purpose of request is for deletion of one category Category:Living People. The reason is whenever people try to categorize any article, there are always two categories shown to them. There is a high rate of possibility for them to categorize the articles in the wrong Category Category:Living People which should not be allowed (per the category). This will increase the no. of edits to move such misplaced articles to the correct category. -- Thaejas (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of changing the application, I would suggest to not allow the editor to find duplicate categories. And it is advisible not have many duplicate categories which are not useful. This will also reduce the no. of edits that bots have to run on the redirected categories (per WP:CFD - Redirecting categories).--Thaejas (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to say that having many duplicate categories is just an extra work (and increased edits) for the bots to work on. As the duplicate categories increase, the bots also have to take care of the increased ones. --Thaejas (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should have more category redirects, not fewer. Category names have far too many variables, with capitalization, preposition choice ("of" or "in"), and even word order ("Fooian xers" or "Xers from Foo"). I agree with the above; if this poses a problem for those comparatively few editors using helper apps to edit, then fix those apps. BTW, which page clearly lays out the functionality and purpose of category redirects? Postdlf (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Based on some discussions, if consensus is to change what we use in category names, the number of categories could well double or increase even more. All of that increase would be redirects. So the tools need to deal with this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the remark. I hope you are aware that CFD is a palce to discuss on the change to any category and the issues with the categories. And I would suggest that you have a login account created and put your remarks instead of being anonymous. - Thaejas (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2009 (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:Clubs that have played in the UEFA Champions League group stage
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: This seems to be overcategorisation, and sets a dangerous precedent. This is also recentism, as it neglects to take into account the structure of the competition when it was named the UEFA European Cup. The next step could be "Clubs that have played in the FA Cup", which would be a huge and somewhat meaningless category. Dancarney (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2009 (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 edit whilst drunk
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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. Not particularly useful for anything except identifying irresponsible editors. Not likely to grow beyond the one editor already in there. -- Ϫ04:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well, identifying drunk and embarrassing editors can be a good thing if we intend to do anything about it, but what makes you think they'll want to add themselves to this category if it will only get them blocked? :) -- Ϫ04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social club... unless this category is going to be used to categorize banned editors. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a cop-out for saying "This editor might make silly edits". Almost changed by !vote to "keep" as a show of support for the perfectly legitimate word "whilst". Grutness...wha?00:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just channelling the nattering of my Canadian "grammar school" teacher towards the poor immigrant kid from England in my class: "Don't write 'whilst'! Just say 'while'!" Good Ol’factory(talk)01:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really? It'd have to be UK specific, since apparently the rest of the Commonwealth does not use it (ie. Canada and Australia do not, presumably NZ as well...) 76.66.197.30 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid as any of the other utterly pointless categories that exist, this also has the benefit of being refreshingly honest. Dr. Meh21:01, 6 October 2009 (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 use Custom Signatures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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 - Does not support collaboration to group users by if they have a custom signature or not. Pointless category. VegaDark (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Custom Signatures" is improperly capitalized, so this at minimum needs a rename. However, I still don't see why we would need a category grouping users who happen to have a custom sig. If seeking out others for help was the intended purpose, a better name for the category would be Category:Wikipedians who are willing to help others with custom signatures, but there would still be very limited use for such a category. Plus, having a "custom signature" doesn't help the encyclopedia, so I would disagree that it it supports collaboration, as the "supports collaboration" requirement generally means "furthers an encyclopedic goal", and users having a custom signature or not is pushing the limits of what can be considered an encyclopedic goal. It also seems like this could be listified, I don't see why a category for this purpose would be necessary. VegaDark (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that having custom signatures does not really help the encyclopedia in a "further[ing] an encyclopedic goal" sense. I would have initially agreed with the nom's terse statement, "pointless category". I think DGG's rationale for keeping is one that almost pushes the justification for keeping a user category to the edge of absurdity. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grouping users by knowledge or interests definitely can further an encyclopedic goal because it provides a grouping of people who share common knowledge/interests that a user can turn to for help or advice in writing encyclopedia articles. The only thing similar that this category could do is provide a grouping of users who know how to create custom signatures, which is not really important in creating the actual text of the encyclopedia. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category doesn't support collaboration. If someone is looking for help with custom signatures, all they have to do is open up any talk page and choose one of many editors there that has a one. Why someone would want a complete list of everyone who uses them I don't know (and it would never be complete anyway, since not everyone who uses a custom signature chooses to categorize themself that way). If kept, at least rename it to Category:Wikipedians who use custom signatures to correct the capitalization. Jafeluv (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2009 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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 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:Fictional characters with inferiority complex
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 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:Languages with over 100 million speakers
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. Inclusionary criteria are completely arbitrary. There's nothing special about a language having 100 million speakers and there is no reason to choose 100 million rather than 200 million or 50 million or 10 million or 101.578 million. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Disagree on the basics with DGG, because we don't need any of these categories: not 1 mln, and not 100 mln. Also very hard to estimate and thus prone to POV. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I highly recommend to keep this page since it highlight the most spoken language in the World and since it should in existence to the public for easy access. For example I was looking for language courses to take based on how many world wide speakers exist. Delete this page for the reasons that it has somewhere else is not relevant since having it concentrated in one single page highlight the contents in it much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.118 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the comment above this category clearly displays a useful purpose. If it can help people like the commenter above to study for a certain topic then that's reason enough to keep it.Or at least transform into a list if one doesn't already exist. nm, redundant to List of languages by number of native speakers which better displays this info anyway. But it would still be useful to see the category on a certain individual language article to 'highlight' it as stated by the anon IP poster. -- Ϫ20:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information can be "useful" while at the same time not being appropriate for the category system. That is the essence of the nomination. Of course the information could be useful. But it also happens to clearly violate guidelines of appropriate categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only is the 100 million cut off arbitrary, but the numbers themselves are never anything more than estimates, which conflict depending on the source, which makes this unworkable as a category. Postdlf (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2009 (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.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
