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.
Support. I don't properly understand the division into two projects, but if typologists and language experts on the one and syntax theorists, phoneticians etc. on the other hand need to projects, fine. However, you cannot really draw such a dividing line for all those tiny templates. So I'd support a merger. Maybe the linguistics templates could be merged INTO the language templates, without requiring the double name "language and linguistics". But anyway, merge, under that name or another! G Purevdorj (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and some questions: The Category:Linguistics templates is a sub-category of Category:Language templates, so this proposal is an UPmerge followed by a rename. Q1: If the rename goes ahead, will the other sub-categories of Category:Language templates remain appropriate of the proposed name? Q2: How are the templates in the linguistics sub-category being used? i.e. is there practical reason for keeping these particular templates in a separate category? Q3: Have the relevant projects been informed of this discussion? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Linguistics is about the study of the nature of language and the relationships between languages. They are not quite the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2013 (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:Christologists
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.
Opppose. The contrary is true. Theologian is as specific as "scientist". There are already existing categories for other more specific branches of theological studies, e.g., there are categories for liturgiologists, canonical theologians and systematic theologians. This is a category which will grow, as this is an established specialty in Christian theology, as one might imagine. Daniel the Monk (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is legitimate to have "Christology", but I do not think that we need categories for specific types of theologian. Christianity is inevitably focused on Christ. We have one article on a man whose work is mostly about Christ, but not exclusively so. He already has "Australian Romans Catholic Theologians" as a category, and that is ample. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well defined theological field, that is considered a sub-field of Christian theology, not the same as it. This category has a clear definition, and dividing theologians by their specialty makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (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:Democide perpetrators
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.
DeleteCategory:Democide perpetrators. Looking at the article Democide it seems to essentially be advancing the views and theories of one man, R. J. Rummel. While his views may be important enough to lead to an article, I do not think they are definitive enough to drive our categorization schema. This seems really to be classifying by a neologism that lacks a precise enough definition to use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and "perpetrators" is NPOV. Are we doomed to have a slew of "perpetrators" to supplement every calamity, scandal, crime, or something we just don't like: Category:Inflation perpetrators? for anyone who pays a higher price for something, making the inflation rate rise? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename - I am inclined to agree with the nominator that the term has not gained wide enough acceptance to serve as a Wikipedia category. (In fact, the work of its primary promoter, R. J. Rummel, is highly controversial -- to put it mildly -- as I discovered from reading large chunks of the talk page for his article.) At the same time, it seems to me that the category serves a useful function as an umbrella for its sub-categories. Notwithstanding the bit of reductio ad absurdum from the preceding editor, we do in fact have a goodly number of perfectly valid categories for perpetrators of various large-scale mass murders -- viz. Category:Genocide perpetrators, Category:Holocaust perpetrators, etc. I'm wondering if we might rename this to something along the lines ofCategory:Perpetrators of politically-motivated mass murder, rather than simply deleting it. (Feel free to improve on the wording... ) Cgingold (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems like a obvious and reasonable way to organize the perpetrators/organizers of this particular type of criminal activity. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that it would be wrong to get diverted into the merits or otherwise of Rummel's own work. The quality of his scholarly efforts is not directly relevant to the suitability of the word "democide" as a category title. It seems to me that there are the relevant tests here, all of which should be met if we want to keep the category: a) is the term in broad use, b) does have a stable and objective meaning, c) does it make a viable category which assists in navigation without being arbitrary, trivial etc. On the evidence I see so far, this one fails at the first hurdle. AFAICS, it has gained currency only in a circle around Rummel; Merriam-Webster lists it under new words and slang. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 26 August 2013 (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:Business people from India
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:Philippine Census footnote punctuation problems
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:Philippine Census using left alignment
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.
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
