Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 30

September 30

Category:Bishops of Geras

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. – Fayenatic London 23:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Geras to Category:Roman Catholic titular bishops

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support with no objection to recreating later if more content is created. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've added a couple more, which I was able to locate as already-existing articles with no diffculty. This is surely NOT a SMALLCAT: it has room for growth (there have been at least 19 Titular Bps of Geras) and it is part of a larger cat scheme. I have to add that I'm not convinced of the benefits of a huge "sump" cat of all RC titular bishops, which is what nom seems to want. Jsmith1000 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I do not want huge categories. On the contrary, I would appreciate if someone would volunteer to systematically break out the Category:Roman Catholic titular bishops into smaller categories (but not categories with a single article, of course). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying - I wasn't entirely sure what your objection was. I'm not hugely interested in titular bishops, but may chip away at the cats from time to time. Jsmith1000 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Object -- I have grave doubts as to whether we should be categorising RC suffrigan bishops by their titular sees. I think there is a precedent on this. They have no territorial connection to their titular see. If we do split the parent category, we should do it by the country or diocese where they actually serve. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 13 October 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:Philadelphia Passon players

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

The result of the discussion was: merged. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Philadelphia Passon players to Category:Philadelphia Nationals players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is for the same team, merely renamed. No useful to split the player categorisations. SFB 20:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per consensus - one category/article per US soccer franchise. Giant Snowman 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- My rule more widely is "one franchise: one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:08, 13 October 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:Awards by Yale University

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) 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Awards by Yale University to Category:Yale University and some also to Category:Awards by universities and colleges in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Besides being oddly named, some of the article here are about awards awarded by groups at the university. Not sure that qualifies as being awarded by the school. Upmerge all to Category:Yale University also selectively merge any of the awards actually by the school to Category:Awards by universities and colleges in the United States. See related discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination and Stanford precedent. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 1 October 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:Religious terminology

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Buddhist terms to Category:Buddhist terminology

Category:Islamic terms‎ to Category:Islamic terminology

Category:Judaism terms‎ to Category:Judaism terminology

Category:Sikh terms‎ to Category:Sikh terminology

Category:New Thought terms‎ to Category:New Thought terminology

Category:Zoroastrian terms‎ to Category:Zoroastrian terminology

Category:Zen terms‎ to Category:Zen Buddhist terminology

Category:Theravada Buddhist terms‎‎ to Category:Theravada Buddhist terminology

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Religious terminology. See previous discussion. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, also because that makes it clearer what the category is intended for, namely for articles about terminology as a defining characteristic - see also the header of Category:Terminology. But at the same time I would also suggest that these categories in fact hardly contain anything about terminology as intended. Presumably the most efficient way to tackle this problem is to delete these terms categories (or upmerge the contents of these categories) and re-establish them as terminology categories starting off empty, then we manually monitor that everything added to the category is really about terminology. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer these categories to be purged of articles that are not about terms/terminology (i.e. articles about concepts and things e.g. Ramadan) before any renaming (to avoid hitting watchlists twice), but if that's not going to happen any time soon (and it needs someone with more understanding of religion than I have) then I support rename or upmerge as proposed by Marcocapelle. Another option might be to create terminology categories, move the few articles that are about terminology/terms across and then upmerge what's left. DexDor (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very difficult category type to maintain. Personally, I don't know the limit of where this definition ends. It doesn't seem more specific than concepts. The terminology category head suggests just including articles that discuss the term itself, but I don't think there are many articles like that. How do you write an article that addresses the usage of a term but not the general concept? Can anyone give me an example? If we're struggling to define what this category is, then it clearly isn't a defining enough attribute. SFB 20:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel is an article that appears to (mostly) be an article about a word, but there are very few like that. Even articles like Gaman (term) aren't really about a word; perhaps that should be "Gaman (Bhuddism)". Some (non-religion) examples of pages that do belong in terminology categories are listed here. Why delete rather than upmerge ? DexDor (talk)

Support per nom. It needs a lot of monitoring. Strange stuff will creep in. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These seem to be terms that result from the theology of each of these religions. If some one can find a merge target, I might support a merger. PLain deletion should be out of the question, despite the difficulty of maintenance. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:11, 13 October 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:Australian Broadcasting Corporation television

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 to Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation television to Category:ABC Television

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The categories appear to cover the same scope "ABC Television" appears to be the official name of that division of the ABC. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as ambiguous. See ABC Television (disambiguation). ABC Television Network is most often know as ABC or ABC Television. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point re ambiguity is noted, but I think we need to do something rather than nothing. (Having the existing two categories with no obvious difference in their scope is a definite problem.) Alternate suggestions are welcome. Should we merge as proposed and then rename one or both of Category:ABC Television and ABC Television to ABC Television (Australia)?

If the reverse merge as proposed by RevelationDirect is acceptable, then I'll support that. As to the name of the article. That renaming discussion should follow the WP:RM process and can be started at any time. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation television is the clearer name. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go with the reverse merge, ie merge Category:ABC Television to Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nom, as ambiguous with ABC Television Network in USA. Sometimes categories need a disambiguator, where the article does not: classically, Birmingham, West Midlands. We need to merge somehow, but not like this. I am not exporessing an opinion on what the target should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 13 October 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:Publishing company

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: speedy redirected. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Publishing company to Category:Publishing companies

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion required here; since our category naming conventions are to use the plural rather than the singular, and the target category already existed at its correct name, this can just be speedy redirectd. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 7 October 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:Educational School in Silay

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. – Fayenatic London 23:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Educational School in Silay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Badly named category that is currently unnecessary (Category:Educational institutions in Silay is sufficient). DexDor (talk) 05:50, 30 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:San Antonio Generals players

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

The result of the discussion was: merged per nom. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:San Antonio Generals players to Category:San Antonio Pumas players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Consensus on WP:FOOTY is that one franchise/team should have one category (except relocation). – Michael (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete per consensus - one category/article per US soccer franchise. Giant Snowman 12:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- "One franchose: one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 13 October 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.