Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 8

December 8

Category:Meleagrididae

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: no consensus. (A case might be able to be made to have both—the scientific one could group articles about species, and the common name one could group articles about cuisine, cultural topics, etc. One could be a subcategory of the other. I'm not mandating this or implementing it, just throwing it out there as a possibility.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Meleagrididae to Category:Turkeys

Nominator's rationale: The common name for this animal; using the plural (as standard for animal names) should distinguish it from the country Turkey. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per convention in Category:Galliformes. Oculi (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should follow scientific classification, not a random name. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dimadick:See Category:Shrews (not Category:Soricidae), Category:Turtles (not Category:Testudines), Category:Frogs (not Category:Anura), Category:Lungfish (not Category:Dipnoi), Category:Ants (not Category:Formicidae), Category:Squid (not Category:Teuthida), Category:Deer (not Category:Cervidae), Category:Birds (not Category:Aves) etc. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per precedent. Besides, whatever the outcome of the discussion, we should have a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No opposition for redirect - many of the precedents I've stated have them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support where there is a common name, I consider that we should use it, but we should have a cat-redirect from the scientific name. If the objection is that it is too similar to the country, though that is not coincidental, we might make the target Category:Turkeys (birds), though personally, I do not think that to be necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep present title. Is Rhegminornis a turkey? According to that article, it is. According to turkey (bird), it's not (but the turkey article doesn't acknowledge other genera in Meleagrididae; there needs to be a separate article that's not a redirect for Meleagrididae or a broader scope for turkey (bird). What are our readers who are searching for turkeys interested in? Most likely domesticated turkey, or perhaps wild turkey. They're unlikely to be interested in turkey (bird) which covers a well known domesticated animal, it's common wild ancestor, and its rare and extinct wild cousins. Turkey (bird) is a title that interferes with readers finding the information they want (if they are not interested in the country). Don't make it worse by moving a precise category title to a concept that is more ambiguous. Plantdrew (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep present title; it's more precise to use the scientific name, and a generic "turkey" category could redirect here if people really think such a category is necessary. Unless we're going to proceed to rename all scientific family name categories to their common names, it makes no sense to change this one. And at the very least, it would need to be a redirect rather than deleted completely. MeegsC (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename We use the common name in naming things in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2016 (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:Jharkhand MLAs 2010–

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Jharkhand MLAs 2010– to Category:Jharkhand MLAs 2010–14

Nominator's rationale: The election was held in 2014 for the new term. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- When we know a certain terminal date it should be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (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:Bihar MLAs 2010–

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 17:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bihar MLAs 2010– to Category:Bihar MLAs 2010–15

Nominator's rationale: The five year term is over. Recently the election was held for the new term. This category needs to be renamed. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- When we know a certain terminal date it should be used. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2015 (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:Calvinist and Reformed artists and writers

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: split; no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Calvinist and Reformed artists and writers to Category:Calvinist and Reformed artists and Category:Calvinist and Reformed writers

Nominator's rationale: To jive with Category:Protestant writers and Category:Christian artists. Before you oppose because Calvinism and artist is a non-notable intersection, please check these sources. JFH (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable intersection between religion and occupation. We don't have an article on the combination, and without pure WP:SYNTH, one could likely not be written. I see no reliable sources suggesting that one can read a book or look at a piece of art that one hasn't seen before and doesn't know the writer and artist, and demonstrably state that the writer is Calvinist - no theologian so says, no book reviewer so says, and no art critic so says, but WP claims to know? The subcat of hymnwriters, as presumably expressing the focus of devotion between various protestant branches is distinguishing is an exception and should be preserved moved up to its other parent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the sources I provided I could easily write such an article. These are book length treatments on the subject! There are also journal articles and bits in other books that can be found with a quick search. I have placed several people in the category only when reliable sources confirm their religion. These sources are commenting on the effect of their faith on their art. Calvinism actually has a particularly pronounced effect on art because of beliefs about idolatry. --JFH (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some journal articles:

Donnelly, Marian C. "Calvinism in the Work of Jacob Jordaens." The Art Quarterly 22 (1959): 356-366.
HUBBARD, TOM. "„FIDDLERS AND PAINTERS AND SUCHLIKE IRRELIGIOUS FOLK”?: CALVINISM, MUSIC AND THE VISUAL ARTS IN SCOTLAND AT THE TURN OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY." PUBLICATIONES: 55.
Larsen, Erik. "Calvinistic economy and 17th century Dutch art." Collab. Jane P. Davidson. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications (1979).

All about Dutch art - if some random Swiss painting from the 1700s were evaluated would the art experts be able to always tell (it is distinguishing, so one contends) if the artist were Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish, humanist, or bald or male or overweight or other bulloney? where are the reliable sources to show that to be true? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, split because artists and writers shouldn't be combined in one category. As for deleting or keeping, weak keep mainly because as a subcategory it fits in Category:Christian writers by denomination and Category:Christian artists with existing other denomination subcategories - but at the same time I'm a bit skeptic whether we should have this split by denomination to begin with, except we should definitely have such a split for religious professionals (clergy, theologians and perhaps hymnwriters). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to fit in with Category:Protestant writers etc. Hugo999 (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Artists and writers belong to different category trees. Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. We need to hold the contents of these categories to the higher level of inclusivity that is used for overlap of religion and the arts categories. Thus J. R. R. Tolkien for example is in Category:English Roman Catholics but should not be placed in Category:Roman Catholic writers because his Roman Catholicism is not defining enough to his writing to overlap the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? That way madness lies. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split or keep -- Writers at least are liable to be influenced by their beliefs in what they produce. Contrary to Carlossuarez46's view this is not about Dutch art. The three articles that I checked were two American ministers and a French sculptor. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom, although I'm tempted to say delete the whole tree as all the categories seem only to hold a miniscule sample of the full contents. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2015 (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.