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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:French Immersion schools in Canada to Category:French immersion schools in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. A speedy nomination that was kind of opposed. I don't think "French immersion" is a proper noun and as such does not need to be capitalized. The WP article is French immersion. The government of Canada does not capitalize it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the article is at French immersion. Only French should be capitalized, not immersion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:French-immersion schools in Canada. The grammatically correct form. Ephebi (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, though I'm guessing you would probably be hard-pressed to find much actual usage that includes the hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed The main article's capitalization should be followed. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (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 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: upmerge to all parent categories, per Black Falcon's argument at the end; credit is due to user:BrownHairedGirl for good work on the UK/England categories. I will nominate the many single-member categories in Category:European Parliament constituencies to follow suit. – Fayenatic London 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:European Parliament constituencies in Northern Ireland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per wp:smallcat. Will likely only ever have one member. There are lots of other constituencies in the UK that don't have their own category. KarlB (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This category links the article to both Constituencies and Politics in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is one of the four subdivisions of the United Kingdom, along with England, Scotland and Wales which have their own EC constituency categories, so Northern Ireland has this category too albeit with only one article in it. Similarly for “by country” or “by year” categories, many small countries (or American states) frequently have only one or two articles for a given year eg Category:2006 in Niue or Category:1977 in Alaska. Ref WP:SMALLCAT. Hugo999 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge there is no reason to keep a category just to have an article linked to multiple things. Anlther key is that while the other stuff that Hugo 999 mentions is single articles categories, there is no reason to supposed only onenotable thing occured in either place in the given year. Those are just under-developed categories, while this is a category that by its very nature only contains one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per JPL, I'm changing my !vote to upmerge. --KarlB (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not proposing subcategories for every European parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom; just that (under “WP:Smallcat) Northern Ireland should have a subcategory as one of the four first-level country subdivisions of the United Kingdom, along with England, Scotland and Wales. Just as the category Category:United States congressional districts (which is subcategorised by state/territory ie the first-level country subdivisions of the United States) has 6 subcategories with one member (American Samoa, Delaware, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Philippines and Puerto Rico), while the largest (California) has 47. members. But those six subcategories are part of a category tree and are retained. The Phillipines category will only ever have one member. Hugo999 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This amounts to "other stuff exists". I would support upmerging any one item categories there as well. However California has 56 articles in its category, not that it matters, but I knew any number under 50 was suspect because there are 53 congressional districts in California at present. The other problem is that while Guam is not a subdivision of something else, Northern Ireland is a subdivision of the United Kingdom and this category can easily be sent there. That is the problem with "other stuff exists" arguments, the other stuff is never as analogous as the person making the point thinks it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. The nominator misunderstands the purpose of this category: it exists not as a category for a sinmgle constituency, but as part of a consistent structure. This category is part of a series of 4 by-country sub-categories of Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom. That pattern of sub-catting UK by its 4 constituent countries is followed consistently for all the types of constituency in Category:Constituencies in the United Kingdom, and for much of the rest of Category:Politics of the United Kingdom. Maintaining a consistent structure assists navigation.
  If editors do not want to keep this category, please note that the category should not simply be deleted; it should be upmerged to all 3 parents: Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom, Category:European Parliament constituencies in Ireland, and Category:Constituencies of Northern Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Guam plus American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are in the category Category:Insular areas of the United States, hence some of them have members in the US Congress! As I said, many US state categories by year (see Category:Years in Alaska) have only one or two articles for many of the subcategories. While articles on notable happenings are a “work in progress”, most of these categories will remain with one or two article per subcategory, and any new articles for the 19th and the early 20th century are likely to be in a year without a subcategory so requiring a new single-member subcategory. This is because many decades have only one or two members, and an event in the 1930s in Alaska if random has a 20% chance of being in 1938 or 1939 (for which a subcat exists) rather than 1930-37. PS: I cannot see how the category Category:Years in Alaska could be retained if all the subcategories with only one article are deleted/upmerged until another category member turns up. Hugo999 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• upmerge --- The problem with this category tree is that all the English constituencies are categories as UK ones, but Wales Scotland and NI have their own categories within Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom. The solution is probably to rename that to Category:European Parliament constituencies in England. then to re-create the present UK category to be a parent for the England, Wales, and Scotland categories and to contain the NI article directly. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right that the English constituencies should be in a subcat, but surely to simplest solution is simply to create and populate a new Category:European Parliament constituencies in England?

  In any case, that's a separate issue, and I don't see you offering any rationale for your support of upmerging this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The upmerging (downmerging?) of most articles in Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom to Category:European Parliament constituencies in England and then the recreation of the UK category is certainly preferable to having to reclassify all these 127 (out of 128) articles manually. But there should be a subcategory for Northern Ireland, as for England, Scotland and Wales. Note that WP:SMALLCAT says to avoid categories "that by their very definition will never have more than a few members" UNLESS “they are part of a large overall accepted subcategorisation” which we have here for the four subdivisions of the United Kingdom. Hugo999 (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Using hotcat to recat manually is not a big job, but there is no need to recategorise manually. It can be done very easily by using AWB, without the ugly internmediate step of having Scotland, Wales etc categorised under England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just created Category:European Parliament constituencies in England, and populated it using HotCat. The parent category Category:European Parliament constituencies in the United Kingdom is now a container category, consisting solely of of one subcat for each of the UK's 4 constituent countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BHG's well-reasoned argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to all three parents. Although most UK categories are, as BHG notes, subdivided into subcategories for the four constituent countries, in most cases there is at least the potential for each subcategory to contain more than just one page. That is not the case for this category and, therefore, I think that it impedes navigation by imposing an extra and unnecessary layer of categorization more than it helps by maintaining consistency. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (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 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. Listifying is unlikely to be encyclopedic due to the sheer number of recipients. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Combat Infantryman Badge ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is such a common decoration as not to be a distinguishing characteristic. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is an award category, something that is generally discoraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then delete as we usually do for such award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2012 (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 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Maglev to Category:Magnetic levitation

Nominator's rationale: 'Maglev' is technically only trains but almost all of the magnetic levitation physics stuff has been proposed for use for trains anyway, so they're difficult topics to separate, but it's better to have it all in one category and use the slightly more general name.Embrittled (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2012 (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 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. Creation of subcategories and diffusion among them can be done normally if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Monasteries to Category:Men's religious organizations and purge. (Alternatively, UpMerge to Category:Religious organizations, and subsequently purge and subcategorise as appropiate.)

This category tree has several problems.

The first is that the word monastery (like "church") can apply both to an organisation and to one or more buildings/structures.

The second is that it includes cloistered (and non cloistered) organisations, with an English word (typically applied to Christian monasteries) which may or may not actually apply to the organisation.

Third, as noted above, it doesn't specify between monasteries (cloistered) and priories/abbeys (non-cloistered). See also List of abbeys and priories. And so we have some odd situations like: One of it's subcats is Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order, which has Category:Carmelite_monasteries as its subcat. but when I click on one of that category's subcats, they're all priories. This is just poor naming. Many of these cats will need renaming for WP:PRECISION.

Fourth, it doesn't divide by gender - See also: Category:Women's religious organizations.

I'm not nominating the sub-categories yet. Let's deal with the top first. - jc37 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge - as nom. - jc37 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is named according to the tradition; so in some cases, the article about a priory is called Monastery X; in some cases the article about an abbey is called Monastery X; or sometimes the article about a monastery is called Convent X; etc. This is not poor naming, it is just the way of the world - many different words have been used, but they all fall under the same general concept of monastery. --KarlB (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose I don't think this is necessary; it matches the head article; unless we rename that (which is also a bad idea), I don't think we should rename this one. The gender separation is also not necessary; in the past, sources would refer to communities of women as abbeys or monasteries or nunneries, sometimes interchangably. re: cloistered or non-cloistered, some of these buildings have housed *different* communities over the years, and the vast majority of the articles are about the building/location + the community, so there's no need for the category structure to separate these (e.g. Monastic communities and Monastic buildings).--KarlB (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That presumes that monastery should be considered the "head article". These all should fall directly under Category:Religious organizations. These trees are a mess due to the variations in naming, both due to the issues I noted in the nom, and due to these typically being international organisations, and so have differences in naming due to linguistic differences. - jc37 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that an abbey could be male or female, led by an abbess or an abbot. - jc37 15:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• um, no, obviously wrong How is the YMCA or the Knights of Columbus the same thing as a monastery? Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  please see: Category:Religious organizations. The term "monastery" is being rather liberally applied to several of its subcats. So in a sense, I am suggesting a merge of a sort. The whole tree is (and has been) a mess. We've had quite a few noms about its various subcats so far. I'm tempted to try to work up a major fix for this huge tree. but for now, let's fix these branches. - jc37 15:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Religious organizations is plagued by the same confusion except at a higher scale, as evidenced by the placement of Category:Church directly underneath it. We've seen of late an ongoing campaign to try to force the articles about individual parishes into separate building hierarchies based on the fact that most are notable for the building they occupy; but in many if not most cases there is a history of the congregation, which often enough involves a series of buildings. This is the opposite oversimplification, because for instance a lot of the articles in the English subtree are mostly about buildings. As KarlB says, we are just going to have to live with the identification of the local organization and the local place with each other. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you're trying to say, but I just disagree that we should just "live with" poor naming, much less poor categorisation. - jc37 17:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment I think it would make much more sense to attack this structure (and the churches as well) as a WikiProject joint task force, involving not just the various religion projects, but also the historic structures projects. There's obviously some strong discomfort with the schema (and I see lots of irregularities myself), but the stream of spot renaming proposals is highlighting the tendency to look at it from a series of more or less narrow perspectives. It's not adding up to a comprehensive vision, and that seems to be what is actually motivating the changes people want to make. We need to bring all these visions together at once instead of this piecemeal conflict. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  At the comics WikiProject we did something similar with the Category:Comics tree.

  We listed all the cats on a user subpage, and discussed the various parts. I've started User:Jc37/Sandbox/Category:Religious organizations. I'll see about trying to get all the subcats listed. - jc37 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The two things are not the same. Things being in a category that do not fit the name is no reason to rename the category, it is a reason to remove misplaced items from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not the same thing: Knights of Columbus, Knights Templar, etc. are certainly Men's religious organizations but are not monasteries by any conceivable stretch of that term. I can only picture Henry VIII dissolving the men's religious organizations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I would think of a monastery as being a building/structure, not an organization. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like hospitals, jails, schools, and many other things, a monastery is an organization, the members of the organization, and the physical home of the organization, and like those other things it is rarely possible to segregate these three concepts.- choster (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Monastic communities. I believe this is a less dramatic change of scope than that originally proposed, as it encapsulates the various meanings of "monastery" (as monastic houses for men vs. monastic houses in general; as cloistered vs. non-cloistered communities; as organization/community vs. building/campus; as cenobitic houses vs. both cenobitic and eremitic houses) while avoiding the connotations of the word monastery as it is commonly used (a cloister of cenobitic men). As KarlB notes the name of each institution reflects its particular history rather than its modern classifications, and as others have noted "religious organizations" is far too broad a destination; we would lose all specificity in the name of clarification.- choster (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  MUCH better name, yes. Support  : ) - jc37 20:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- This is an appropriate term for a parent to cover both the communities and the buildings in which they serve. In UK, the monastries were dissolved at the Reformation, so that most of the content is about ruined buildings. This is covering several religious faiths and several quite different kinds of institution. I would suggest that the headnote should be expanded to make this clear. Communities of monks would be an appropriate subcategory. In UK, it is probably necessary to distinguish new communities established in 19th and 20th centuries (together) from those dissolved in about 1539. I would suggest that the condition for inclusion would be that the community using (or formerly using) them had a rule and a common life. I am not clear how well this fits non-Christian examples. This would mean that secular minsters and portionate churches (where the members had no common life) would be excluded. I am not clear how well this test fits non-Christian examples. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and create subcategories like Category:Monastic communities, Category:Abbeys and Category:Priories and others as needed. Trying to force ambiguous name to serve the purpose of holding buildings, religious orders and classes of organizations is flawed from the start. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I oppose the suggestion that the category "monasteries" should be renamed "Men's religious organisations" - this is a much less widely used term than the term "monasteries", and would be too wide-ranging to constitute a category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2012 (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 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Christian monasteries to Category:Christian monasteries and priories

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_27#Category:Priories.

While I can see the want to merge the trees, just as there is a difference between a friar and a monk, so too between a priory and a monastery.

This was also the solution for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5#Roman_Catholic_Religious_Sisters, a similar ituation. - jc37 14:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - as nom. - jc37 14:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose a priory is a type of monastery. There are hundreds of other categories underneath this one that have not been proposed for rename; what is the purpose of adding priories in the title, but not friaries or abbeys or convents or any of the many other terms. Monastery is the most generic term which captures all of the above. --KarlB (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is that a priory and friary are roughly the same thing (P/F being mostly a linguistic difference). See the explanation at Convent for how these are different from monasteries. The problem is that the word "monastery" is used and applied differently by different orders. As I noted above, this is not unlike the issues with the nomenclature related to nuns and sisters. And the stance of the RCC (as noted in that previous discussion) is that they may name themselves. And so in this case, it's even clearer: Friars are not monks. - jc37 15:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See also List of abbeys and priories. - jc37 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem here is in trying using the category system as a rigid taxonomy to distinguish between fine shades of meaning that have changed over historic time periods. Lists are much better for this purpose; the categories are better at capturing larger buckets. The vows and ways of living of friars, nuns, sisters religious, monks, and so on vary across the disciplines and across time.--KarlB (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – both the priory and abbey articles state in their opening sentences that each is a type of monastery. I am more than content with all these being under the general Category:Christian monasteries. Oculi (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So sisters are allowed emancipation from nuns, but friars are not from monks? (Not an OTHERSTUFF comment, but rather a "prior precedent" one...) - jc37 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • we're not talking about friars and monks, we're talking about monasteries (and abbeys and priories, etc). If you want to create a whole category tree for friars or rename every monk category to monks and friars please feel free to nominate, but this is not about people. --KarlB (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's about groups of people. - jc37 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is getting too technical. In general English usage people call all these things monestaries. Of course, I also still stand by my statement that in normal speach the term "nun" covers any woman in a religious order where she has agreed not to marry. I think people are forgetting that the rule that we use "common names" means that we pay attention to how people actually use the language and not what is "technically correct".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: They are two different things. The categories should be kept separate. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Whether a monastery was an abbey or a priory depended on whether the head of it was an abbot or a prior. However they are both varieties of monastery. Some priories were quite small, being local outstations of larger institutions, but some like Wenlock Abbey and Worcester Cathedral were large institutions, whose head was for historical reasons only a prior, which would otherwise be the title of the second ranking monk. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am very strongly opposed to the suggestion that a category called "Christian monasteries" should be deleted - this category is solving a useful purpose, and definitely needs to be kept in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2012 (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 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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are unconvincing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Candidates to the United States House of Representatives from Oregon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category sorts by non-defining characteristic. Running for the US House is generally not a defining characteristic for most politicians. These politicians are all notable for something else. TM 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - non-defining characteristic? Seriously? You mean like birth and death cats, or African American this or that or Jewish American this or that, as if any of those characteristics define or make people in those categories notable. As is, the cat fits fine with Wikipedia:Categorization of people, and even within WP:OVERCAT where non-defining comes from, this would actually pass. As in, the fact that these people ran (and lost since they would be in a different cat had they won) is likely to be mentioned in the lede sections of these articles. In fact, for some of these articles, that is actually what makes them notable: Rob Cornilles, Jim Feldkamp, Jaynee Germond, and Mike Erickson for instance. Others became notable after their Congressional runs. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are categories by year for unsuccessful American political candidates in Category:American political candidates by date with subcategories for (mostly) even years eg Category:Candidates in United States elections, 2012. The only other “by state” category is Category:Oklahoma gubernatorial candidates. Perhaps the “by state” category could include all candidates regardless of position run for eg Category:Oklahoma political candidates or Category:Oregon political candidates. NB: not all unsuccessful candidates are “notable”! Hugo999 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that all candidates are notable, any more than having the year of birth categories would somehow make every person born in a certain year notable. These types of cats are useful for sorting through those people who ran and lost. Specifically, in the context of the US House, I'd argue that all Republican and Democratic candidates that make it to the general election are notable, and there should be similar categories for each state. I would hesitate to lump in all candidates for all offices, as that muddies the water to where just clicking on that cat you would be unable to know what the person ran for. The "Foo political candidates" might work as a container category if you also had other cats for US Senate, state legislatures, mayors, and governors or the like. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while it is still not 100% clear if merely being a cnadiate for the US House infers notability, the reality is that many people we have articles on are in fact most known for this. Many people may have their notability gauranteed by having served in a state house or state senate, but they are in reality most known for having been a candidate for the US House.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is well-established in WP:POLITICIAN that politicians do not become notable (if at all) until elected. Presidential candidates are an exception to this, but will normally already be notable for other reasons. Since the candidates are essentially NN (unless for other reasons), we should not have categories for them. Doing so would encourage the creation of articles about NN candidates which then have to be deleted when they fail to get elected. Getting rid of articles on NN politicians is enough of a problem, as far too many get created in the run up to elections. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we do not just have categories for notable characteristics. You might argue we only allow lists of notable this or that, but we treat lists differently than categories. Under your theory, there is a huge backlog of cats that need to be mixed, starting with the Year of Birth cats, Year of Death Cats, Place of Birth Cats, Baseball players from Foo. Or in general I would estimate 80% of our established categories would need to go. For example, looking at President Obama, he is in 35 categories if you exclude Obama named ones, and of those only 13 of those categories could only hold notable people (as in every person alive that is a current national leader meets notability requirements, every US President is notable, etc). Honestly, I'm a living person, so should I have an article since we have that cat? Currently we only have about 580,000 in that cat, and with 7 billion or so living people, obviously not every person that could be in that cat somehow has an article. Face it, categories have nothing to-do with conferring notability, they only help us sort articles. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing is not an accepted argument in these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The vast majority of these have notability before running, hence they run. Very rarely do we have someone who is totally unknown and this is their entry to notability. However having this category for those people would be a maintenance nightmare that would be best addressed by a list and not a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a losing candidate for a Presidential election does usually confer notability, but that is not the case with lesser offices. That's why there is a long-standing guideline at WP:POLITICIAN that politicians do not become notable (if at all) until elected.
  Those who are elected will of course be categorised as congresspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 12 July 2012 (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 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. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 2#Category:Churches by dedication. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Churches dedicated to duos of Saints to Category:Churches by dedication

Nominator's rationale: There are a number of saints who conventionally appear in pairs (e.g. Saints Cosmas and Damian). Therefore church dedications likewise typically have them appearing in the same pairs. Assuming that the whole dedications categorization survives, I could see having a category of atypical multiple dedications, or maybe a catch-all for all multiple dedications, but I don't see how have a category for the conventionally paired saints improves navigation. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree Duos of saints are a specific category and the pairing is often not just in church dedications but also in things such as feast days. In most (but not all) cases there was also quite a lot of overlap in the acts that made them saints. I agree that this should not apply to random pairs of saints - from for example parish mergers, but if the Duo doesn't appear in the parent "Duos of Saints" categories then they can be removed and a note can be added to the category page. JASpencer (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see in this anything that indicates how they are a specific category in a way that is relevant to the hierarchy. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Under Category:Saints there is a category Category:Saints duos. Remember the whole rationale of the dedication of churches is that it is saint based, not merely a name. JASpencer (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not dispute the category of these paired/multiple saints. My point is that, as far as dedications are concerned, they function as units just like the single saints, or to venture further afield, the virtues, the angels, the feasts, and all the Anglican Christ Churches. We do not need to reflect the one hierarchy in the other. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I thought that this category might be better tackled once this discussion is resolved one way or the other, but since it has been nominated, I'm in favour of deletion for essentially the reasons the nominator gives. I think the entire recently created "churches by dedication" scheme is OCAT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominated, or delete if the target category is abolished. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is if anything worse than the specific saints structure. As it is, it boils down to categorization by shared name, which we do not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mangoe, but would prefer deletion per my comments in the 2 July discussion. For this specific category, the pairs of dedicatees always operate as a single dedication and singling these out as something special or out of the norm is strange. I suspect that this could be the thin edge and we could end up with similar categories all the way up to a category for the Uganda Martyrs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coincidence of naming - and what of churches dedicated to "All Saints" or "All Souls"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferably delete as I have voted on this discussion, but the outcome must depend on the outcome there. If it ends in deletion, this needs to be deleted too, to fell the whole tree. If it is kept, most pairs should be split by merging to the category on each saint, just as we do with British people who have both Jamaican and French descent (usually from different parents, avoiding the triple intersection. There may be a few duos that are common enough to need retention, such as Peter and Paul. "All Saints", "All Souls", "Sacred Heart" etc are clearly single dedications, even if notionally plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The nominal dedication of a church usually has little or no bearing on what goes on there, so this is not a defining characteristic.
  Note that if this category is deleted, its sub-category Category:Churches dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul will be orphaned. That will require a separate nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment well that category is currently also up for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I hadn't spotted that it was included in the group nomination. Thanks for pointing it out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 14 July 2012 (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 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Anti-Catholic pogroms in the United States to Category:Anti-Catholic riots in the United States

Nominator's rationale: I don't see why this deviates from its parent category or from the main article, which is anti-Catholic riots. Mangoe (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with rename as it's more neutral. I'm down as the starter, but it's not me. I picked this up for Anti-Catholic riots because it was already existing under the "pogroms" name. You may want to find the person who started this category and tell them about this so if they want to argue for the original name then they can. JASpencer (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Pogroms are by definition anti-Jewish. Beyond this, the definition of riot is both clearer and less a case of trying to malign those involved. Not that riots are looked on in a postiove light by most people, but pogrom is a term that is meant to pull out a whole set of negative attacks invoke late 19th century Czarist Russia or 1930s Nazi Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pogroms are by definition anti-Jewish". Err, no. Some exaples from the pogrom article, the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom, the 1920 Shusha pogrom, the 1988 Sumgait pogrom and the Kirovabad pogrom, last thre aimed at ethnic Armenians were targeted. The 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi are also often referred as a pogrom. The term started out as violent state sanctioned riots aimed at Jews, but times have moved on now they are more equal opportunity. JASpencer (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename no reliable neutral sources call these pogroms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REname -- "Progom" is an inappropriate term. My understanding is that a pogrom involves systematic persecution over a significant period. A single riot (or even a short series) is not as serious as a progrom. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2012 (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 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:Tyrannus (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Tyrannus to Category:Kingbirds (or at least Category:Tyrannus (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Tyrannus is ambiguous. The undisambiguated Tyrannus and Tyrannus (genus) redirect to Kingbird, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Awwww. When I saw the header on my watchlist I thought someone was looking to rename this category to Darth Tyrannus : ) - jc37 03:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Colbert gets a species but Christopher Lee gets an entire genus? What's up with that? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Experience? Gravitas? ... Class? (Quickly ducks : ) - jc37 03:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Tyrannus (genus) This is part of a well-established scheme, by which the latin names are used in categorization. If you want to change this to use common names, the relevant projects should be informed and a global discussion had. In this case, Tryannus (genus) would be an acceptable category title, since there are other articles with the same name. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FAUNA should probably be changed then, as a "common name preferred" standard establishes inconsistency when you come across critters that don't have a common name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. It says "Use the most common name when possible". If it doesn't have a common name, it's not possible, so you don't use a common name. We already have Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name; it seems the suggestion of the guidelines is saying that as a first choice, we would create a category for Category:Birds by common name over Category:Birds by classification. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you should know better than this. You have cherry picked half a dozen bird cats that have ambiguous names, out of a category tree containing hundreds of latin name categories. WP:FAUNA aside (which doesn't opine on category names), there is clear consensus on the existence of these categories by their latin name, so your suggestion to rename to the common name here is rather daft. In any case, CfD is not the place to discuss such wide-ranging changes; I'd suggest going to one of the biology or bird wikiprojects to have a global discussion.--KarlB (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I really wish that users could acknowledge that there are more ways than their own of viewing a situation without calling the other one "daft" or ascribing some ill intent to the one holding it. (I "should know better than this"?—what exactly does that mean? I should know better than to disagree with you? Or you think I am actually doing something that I know is inappropriate?) From my view—no, there is not a "clear consensus" that these categories should be known by their Latin names. There are two schemes—one is Category:Birds by classification (Latin name) and the other is Category:Birds by common name (common name). Both are well populated and have existed side-by-side for a long time without any moves to eliminate one in favour of the other. I have actually checked, and the vast majority of genus categories in Category:Birds by classification were created by an amazingly prolific bot in 2007, and not pursuant to some "consensus" that exists or existed somewhere in the ether. (Also, if you examine Category:Birds by classification carefully, you will find many subcategories that use the common name, so the system is a bit of mash right now, not a lily-white pure Latin-by-consensus that the proposals would be defiling if they were implemented.) And I see no reason in this case why the naming guideline cannot apply to categories as well as articles, except for personal preference in adopting a strict interpretation whereby if it doesn't explicitly say that it applies, we assume it doesn't apply. But that's definitely not the only way to read the guideline. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The naming guideline could perhaps apply to these categories, and perhaps the whole bird tree should be looked at. I'm totally open to that. But that is not what you're doing. You're chipping away at a huge category structure, a few species at a time. The result is sure to be inconsistency. That's why consensus for now is leaning towards keeping the latin names. When I say "you should know better than this", it's b/c you've been here a long time, and you know that major changes to category structures are not usually done in this fashion; instead they are done with consultation of relevant projects, ending with a mass single nomination that is well framed and generally agreed by experts (esp in a technical tree like this one). It's good that you identified ambiguous names, but your continued insistence to move these to common names (or even to move them to a different part of the category tree all of a sudden) when it seems clear you don't have much expertise in bird-classification seems to me misguided.--KarlB (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to work on not believing that you know certain things about other users. At least with me, please. First, you say that I have demonstrated "continued insistence to move these to common names". No, I have suggested that that is my preference, but I have also explicitly stated in each nomination that I am open to a rename to the other format. Don't project a stubborn insistence to me to have my own way when none exists. It is possible to debate issues and point out counter-arguments without such behaviour amounting to "stubborn insistence". I like to explore proposals and counter-proposals and challenge others' opinions with counter-opinions and thereby bring out all the issues in discussion; I'm not doing it because I'm having a tantrum! From time to time, I even (shock horror) point out problems with my own preferred solution. I know doing so is close to heresy on the drama-board of WP, but it's an approach I'm comfortable with. Second, "when it seems clear you don't have much expertise in bird-classification". It's never a good idea to assume you know about a user's background knowledge. Keep doing it if you like but eventually doing so always results in one looking like an idiot when you discover what someone's background really is and that this is a polar opposite of what you assumed based on a limited number of comments or edits. Last point—you are incorrect (in my view) that changes such as this must or should be discussed by a WikiProject. That might be how you prefer things to unfold, but it is not always how things do unfold and often changes and tweaks are made to the category system entirely within the CFD system, and that is fine with me. (I think what one regards as the "usual" practice depends almost entirely upon the time frame being referred to and where what area of WP one is focusing one's attention on. I can provide dozens of examples of where category schemes have been given major overhauls within CFD; no doubt there are dozens of examples of the same happening in WikiProjects.) You are free to disagree, but please don't tell me what to think by implying that I should know better but to propose what I have proposed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if the above unfairly did not AGF. Nonetheless, I maintain that chipping away a few species at a time (and suggesting that the cats be moved to the common-names tree) is not productive. If you have a broader re-arrangement of cats in mind for all birds, then propose it here or at birds and see if you get consensus. But the cats you chose were only those that happened to be ambiguous, so applying some sort of broader recategorization (vs just fixing the ambiguousness) based on that tiny sample is sure to lead to inconsistency in the absence of a larger plan.--KarlB (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Tyrannus (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Tyrannus (genus) There are two members of this genus that are not called kingbirds. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Tyrannus (genus). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 11 July 2012 (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 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:St. Boniface Saints players to Category:St. Boniface Saints (baseball) players

Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with the newly created Category:St. Boniface Saints (ice hockey) players. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_29#Category:Hamilton_Red_Wings_players.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (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 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:Regulus (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Regulus to Category:Kinglets (or at least Category:Regulus (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Regulus is about the star and is otherwise ambiguous. Regulus (genus) redirects to Kinglet, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. when I saw the category name, I thought of the missile. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Regulus (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Regulus (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Regulus (genus) Only two of the five or six species in this genus are called kinglets. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Regulus (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 11 July 2012 (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 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:Sylvia (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sylvia to Category:Typical warblers (or at least Category:Sylvia (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Sylvia is ambiguous. Sylvia (genus) redirects to Typical warbler, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename when I saw this listed as a discussion I figured we had another shared name cateogry on our hands. The fact that the top defintion of Sylvia is a female given name shows that I was thinking along the expected use mind track. The evidently second most common usage is Sylvia, Kansas, which is not this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Sylvia (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Sylvia (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Sylvia (genus) Among other reasons, the phrase "typical warbler" is not in widespread usage and is not supported by any taxonomic groups I'm aware of. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Sylvia (genus) - I believe the WP:COMMONAME, at least on this side of the pond, is "Old World warblers", I've never heard "Typical warblers" before in all my years of birding... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 11 July 2012 (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 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:Bleda (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bleda to Category:Bristlebills (or at least Category:Bleda (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bleda is about the brother of Attila the Hun; this category is for the bird genus. Bleda (genus) redirects to Bristlebill, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename not about the Hunnic warrior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Bleda (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Bleda (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Bleda (genus) I also agree with KarlB. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Bleda (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 11 July 2012 (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 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:Nigrita (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nigrita to Category:Negrofinches (or at least Category:Nigrita (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nigrita is about a town in Greece; this category is for the birds of the genus Nigrita. Nigrita (genus) redirects to Negrofinch, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Negrofinches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Nigrita (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Nigrita (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Nigrita (genus) The naming authority followed by Wikipedia doesn't even call them negrofinches anymore. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Nigrita (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 11 July 2012 (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 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:Miliara (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Miliaria to Category:Corn Buntings (or at least Category:Miliara (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Miliaria is about a skin disease; this category is for the bird genus. Miliara (genus) redirects to Corn Bunting, the common name for the bird of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename not about the disease.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Miliaria (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Miliaria (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Miliaria (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 11 July 2012 (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 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:Irena (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Irena to Category:Fairy-bluebirds (or at least Category:Irena (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Irena is ambiguous. Irena (genus) redirects to Fairy-bluebird, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Irena (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Irena (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Irena (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 11 July 2012 (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 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:Lalage (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lalage to Category:Trillers (birds) (or at least Category:Lalage (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Lalage is ambiguous. Lalage (genus) redirects to Triller (bird), the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Lalage (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Lalage (genus) per KB Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Lalage (genus). "Trillers (birds)" is ambiguous to most people; average Wikipedia user: "don't most birds trill?" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article is at Triller (bird) so why not just follow the article. The suggestion that this is at all ambiguous is odd to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, because Trillers (bird) would be confusing to readers as a category name at the bottom of an article - lay readers will think that means "birds that trill", not "member of the Triller group". Secondly, because, as pointed out elsewhere, having the fauna categories at a mix of English and Latin names is counterproductive and unprofessional. (And thirdly, C2D is not a straightjacket.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 16 July 2012 (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 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:Philemon (genus). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Philemon to Category:Friarbirds (or at least Category:Philemon (genus))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Philemon is ambiguous. Philemon (genus) redirects to Friarbird, the common name for birds of this genus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for clarity. I was unaware of any meaning other than the book of the Bible, although that one is unlikely to merit a category. – Fayenatic London 20:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the fact the genus gets tacked on the disambiguation page below the section "other" shows it is not at all a major usage of the term. It is probably most recognized as a Biblical book, and secondly other usages as a personal name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Philemon (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh—it depends on whether it's included as Category:Birds by classification or Category:Birds by common name. There's nothing inherent about the category that says it cannot be in the latter one. And WP:FAUNA says things should be named after the common name whenever possible, not the taxonomic name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Philemon (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Philemon (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 11 July 2012 (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 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. Parenthesizing the name can be nominated later.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging

Category:International style buildings to Category:International style architecture

Propose renaming

Category:International style buildings in the United States to Category:International style architecture in the United States

Category:International style buildings in the United Kingdom to Category:International style architecture in the United Kingdom

Category:International style buildings in England to Category:International style architecture in England

Category:International style buildings in Scotland to Category:International style architecture in Scotland

Nominator's rationale: “architecture” not “buildings” is the usual names for these categories and the category Category:International style architecture already contains some buildings (some of which should be in Category:International style architecture in the United States) Hugo999 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If renamed, starting at the top, shouldn't this be to Category:International style (architecture) which matches the name of the main article? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:International style (architecture).John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:International style (architecture) pattern. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge and rename per nom. Adhering to the 'main article name' in this case ("(architecture)") isn't strictly necessary, and produces a slightly awkward format when the non-(parens) format is clearer...and also follows the head category of the tree, which is not up for renaming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Either is satisfactory to me, though none of the architecture subcategories have (style) in brackets. And for consistency and to match the main article perhaps Category:Mediterranean Revival style architecture could be (speedy?) renamed to Category:Mediterranean Revival architecture; no other categories need to say Foo Revival style architecture rather than Foo Revival architectecture. Hugo999 (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I have nominated it. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge and rename per nom. Let's first consolidate these categories and then consider renaming the main category to Category:International style (architecture) or, following the examples of Category:Commercial Style architecture and Category:Shingle Style architecture, to Category:International Style architecture. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/Rename per nom and Black Falcon - jc37 02:35, 31 July 2012 (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 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Periods in Literary history ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one article; seems superfluous alongside Category:History of literature and Category:Literary movements. Someone on the talk page suggested a merge with the latter, but such is the lack of merge-able entries that, in my opinion, nothing would be lost if this category were simply deleted. At the very least, it should be renamed so that the "l" in "Literary" is in lower case. SuperMarioMan 01:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it hasn't proved useful. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a small cateogry unlikely to expand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I can see that such as category might be useful if populated, but think it better to leave teh other two mentioned by nom to deal with the issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2012 (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 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:Falco (genus). If the content of Falconidae#Genera in taxonomic order is accurate, then it appears that several species of bird that are termed falcons are not members of the genus Falco. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Falco to Category:Falcons or rename to Category:Falco (genus)

Nominator's rationale: Merge or rename. Falco is ambiguous. I'm not convinced we need to separate this category from the logical category Category:Falcons, but if a separate category is desired for individual species within the genus, it at least needs to be disambiguated. Note that Falco (genus) redirects to Falcon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge given the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Falcons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Falco (genus); latin names are standard in this part of the category tree, even if the articles aren't always named that way. No reason to make an exception, Category:Falcon notwithstanding.--KarlB (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scientific name is probably also better as not all classifications put all falcons in Falco. —innotata 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! Specifically, what is in Category:Falco that could not go in Category:Falcons? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Falco (genus) as per Karl's rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Falco (genus) Many falcons are not in the genus Falco. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Falco (genus) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 11 July 2012 (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 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. "Currently"/"Former" categories are strongly discouraged. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Churches offering the Tridentine Mass ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The nature of the religious services offered in a particular church change from time to time. Essentially, this is a category for churches that currently offer the Tridentine Mass. Categories work best when they do not distinguish between current and former statuses, but with this category, I don't think that is possible. It would make little sense to categorize every church that has ever offered the Tridentine Mass. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a category for churches where their Wikipedia page says that they are currently offering the Tridentine Mass. And the idea that because things infrequently change therefore there should not be a category is not a good argument, otherwise we'd have to get rid of Category:Living people. JASpencer (talk)
  • So offering this mass once a week justifies inclusion in the category? Just how is that defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning delete I have somewhat mixed feelings about this one, but when all is said and done the offering of various rites is a property of the clergy, not the building; and these are articles where notability is being earned through architectural and historic merit. Mangoe (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete While celebration of the Tridentine Mass is a distinguishing and notable feature, the categorization is problematic. For one, as Mangoe points out, the celebration is a feature of the clergy and not of the community or the facility. Any priest can now celebrate the Tridentine Mass with any stable group of worshipers, which need not constitute a parish and need not be in a parish church. Second, while the places where one can find the traditional Mass are relatively stable, essentially all Catholic churches would have offered it prior to the publication of the Pauline Mass. Third, while it would be reasonable to set a cutoff for celebrations since 1984 or since 2007, the requirement for episcopal dispensation was explicitly removed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, and I would expect practice of the traditional Mass to be less of a distinguishing and notable characteristic in the future. A possible alternative is to listify, either as an annotated standalone list or as a list within the main article for a see. - choster (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the actual meaning, Churches offering the Tridentine Mass after Vatican II. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969, more than three years after the conclusion of Vatican II, and the revised missal was not available everywhere until many months later, with the Tridentine Mass celebrated in the interim, so I don't think this is a viable alternative.- choster (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we could say "After implementation of Vatican II". However, in reality I think we can assume that as the understood meaning. "After Vatican II" in this case would clearly mean after the policies resulting from Vatican II were put in place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My understanding is that the celebration of this type of mass is more associated with the priest rather then the congregation or building. Given this, the fact that any church is free to offer this form of mass makes it not defining. If this is intended to only cover churches that use this form of mass exclusively, then the category name is wrong. But even in that case, we would probably be questioning that one as well. As a side note, if this category is deleted, then a note should be added to Category:Tridentine Mass stating that the category specifically excludes churches offering the mass. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a Tridentine Mass is scheduled every month it is far more common for the priest to change than the church to change. In fact I can't think of an example where a regular Tridentine Mass has changed among churches, although the priests often change. Sure there are examples where it's stopped or started but not where it's St Mungo's in July but St. Augustine's in August. JASpencer (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - given that Benedict XVI approved the general use of the Tridentine Mass on 7 July 2007 (as listed on the Main Page yesterday), any member of the ordained Roman clergy may celebrate it in any church. This means that this category could potentially hold every Roman church, monastery, retreat centre, &c. I can't see how this can be defining per the usual category rules. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't speculate on whether it will stop being a defining feature of a church, as seems popular in this discussion. The fact is that a minority of Catholic churches offer the Tridentine Mass - and the fact that all of them could does not stop it being the case that the majority of them don't. JASpencer (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is far to fluid of a thing to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things change around every ten to twenty years, it's about as fluid as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies. JASpencer (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete akin to Category:Churches offering mass in Polish or Category:Churches open for confession on Tuesday at noon, which one finds in the yellow pages not an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England? As for confessions on Tuesday, not knowing the difference between scheduling of confession and the type of Mass offered is symptomatic of the careful thought and deep as a puddle knowledge of Catholic belief and practice displayed in the CFD discussions. JASpencer (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (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.