Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 18

September 18

Category:Histadrut General secretaries

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. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Histadrut General secretaries to Category:General Secretaries of Histadrut

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity, more than anything else. The trade union name is Histadrut. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as speedy After gathering the tree at Category:General secretaries this is clearly the usual form. SFB 16:39, 21 September 2014 (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:Buddhist priestesses

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 as Category:Female Buddhist clergy for now. However, this could be changed with a follow-up nomination: the only reason I didn't rename to Category:Bhikkhuni here is the reason set out the nominator later in the discussion—does this term include priestesses and nuns, and if so, we would need to merge this category and the nuns categories into one. We need more info to get everything sorted out correctly, so this rename is without prejudice to further proposals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buddhist priestesses to Category:Female Buddhist clergy

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:Buddhist clergy. This change was clearly supported in the (long) discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy, but this category was not tagged as part of that nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Does not match article titles. Instead, rename to Category:Bhikkhuni. Categories should be named following their parent articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NoteI just made Bhikkhuni the main article for this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Rename per SmokeyJoe. The earlier naming discussion kept Category:Christian nuns because the title already indicated the members would be female. This seems like the same situation. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question. I note that Buddhist priest redirects to Bhikkhu; so does Buddhist monk. There is no page for Buddhist priestess; Buddhist nun redirects to Bhikkuni. If there is no difference between Buddhist "priestess" and "nun", then should we not first be merging to category:Buddhist nuns, which not only exists but has a substantial hierarchy of like-named categories under it? If that needs renaming to Bikkhuni, then that could follow as a separate nomination. (Note: the parent category:Buddhist clergy also appears redundant to category:Buddhist sangha, and should probably be merged and redirected.) – Fayenatic London 20:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordination of women in Buddhism provides some information but doesn't distinguish between a priest(ess) or a nun. I put up a tag on WikiProject Buddhism to see if we can't get some additional viewpoints. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Buddhist women clergy. We should go for names that actually make sense to most English speaking readers, but also avoid inaccuracies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that Bhikkhuni is not English per the existence of the article at Bhikkhuni. Anyone interested in Buddhist clergy should be familiar with Bhikkhuni. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, we have Category:Female religious workers, Category:Female religious leaders, Category:Female clergy and Category:Female Christian clergy. What's your rationale for using "women" instead of "female"? – Fayenatic London 20:09, 21 September 2014 (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:Historic textile machinery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Upmerging Category:Historic textile machinery into Category:Textile machinery

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SUBJECTIVE. The textile industry is absolutely historic and created the industrial revolution. But all three of the articles in this categories describe machinery that is still used in contemporary textile mills, albeit in updated models. No other category in the Category:Machinery subject tree includes "historic" because it is subjective whether you mean old, obsolete, and/or important. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Merge -- Obviously. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Agree with all the above. SFB 16:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Yes. Agree with all the above. A good example of over classification -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2014 (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.