Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 12

November 12

Category:Anagignoskomena

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. At the very least, there is no support to merge the nominated category into the designated targets, but alternatives are worth considering as outlined within this discussion. ℯxplicit 04:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for texts that only Eastern Orthodox churches accept as part of the Biblical canon. Merging this category was suggested, and received support, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_October_1#Category:Texts_only_found_in_the_Septuagint, and at Category talk:Old Testament apocrypha. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may well be the case that the use of the term Apocrypha is indeed the position of Protestant denominations to own the terminology, the language, thereby justifying their canonical positions. Nevertheless, it is a thing. Wiki cannot ignore that it is a real thing. Wiki can of course explain in scope notes that other denominations reject the idea that the books are apocrophal at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont object to leave a category named Apocrypha, because, as you say, it is a thing. I object to remove all categories which doesn't fit the Protestant Theology. A ntv (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose I don't think that the solution to having three competing sets of deuterocanonical books is to eliminate all the various categories which list them! Maybe we have too many such categories, but it seems to me that it makes sense to have a category for each of the three canons (Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox) and then get rid of the others. I'm also not convinced that we need Category:Texts in the Septuagint unless it contains texts which no canon accepts. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The point is that each major denomination accepts different bits of the Septuagint for their canon. There is therefore a need for a category that holds the entirety of the Septuagint, regardless of denomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That means categorizing all of the Tenakh into the Septuagint category as well as whatever other categories the various books are already members of. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: The books do not have to be individually added. Tanakh = Books of the Hebrew Bible, which is already a sub-cat of the Septuagint category. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Yes I think that it's best to withdraw. Also the Easter Orthodox regard all the Catholic deutro canon as being part of their deutro canon so really the title would have to be something clumsy like

Category:Additional deuterocanonical books in Eastern Orthodoxy. I've drawn up a chart in my sandbox. I'll share it later.Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope we can do without "Additional" in the category name. Rather we should have Category:Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books that consists of Category:Catholic deuterocanonical books plus a handful of articles. And by the way Category:Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books would simply be a rename and purge of the now nominated Category:Category:Anagignoskomena. What I'm less sure about is how we go ahead with Category:Old Testament, is that category going to be about the Old Testament in the broadest possible sense (i.e. Eastern Orthodox sense)? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's something that I made to help me make sense of it all. It's not totally accurate. One denomination's pseudepigrapha is another denomination's anagignoskomena.

Legend Associating Colour Groups to Denominational Families

I've updated this with a new legend. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It should be bortn in mind that apocrypha in its origin refers to something that is hidden, these are originally thought to be the texts of hidden knowledge. It is a much later use that apographal=false. So we may need to better think out the headings. However historically "The Apocrypha" refered to some or all of these books, and pseudopigrapha is the term historically used for works not considered to be authentic scripture in any major religious traditions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The etimologhy of the word apocrypha is just an issue of historical interest. Now apocrypha means that categorization so known in the Protestant theology. As in naming articles, also in naming cathegories we shall consider the commonly recognizable names (WP:UCRN). A ntv (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2017 (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:American reality television series about game wardens

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:American reality television series about game wardens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This narrow intersection of programming, country, genre, and subject is not suitable for the structure of Category:American reality television series. Any topical splits of this category tree should be by genre first (see Category:Reality television series by genre). (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2017 (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:Abundant Life Ministries albums

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category contains three redirects which all three redirect to the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would create a precedent that is probably undesirable. There may be tons of music albums in lists in musician articles, without a stand-alone article about the album, we do not want to end them all up as redirects in categories, do we? Marcocapelle (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (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:Islamic names

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 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as Islamic, Christian or Jewish names. These names come from any language and religion is not a language Sarah Canbel (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it certainly IS possible to identify specifically Islamic names, starting with Mhd and Ali, and religion of origin must surely be a defining characteristic. (It's also possible to identify specifically Jewish names and, slightly less straightforwardly, Christian names, not to mention Hindu names). Eustachiusz (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed and Ali are Arabic names per-Islam. Muhammad means praised, commendable, laudable and Ali means "high" or "elevated". It seems to me that Islamization of Arabic names.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the language there is a group of names used specifically by Moslems and thus identifiable as Islamic. The category could be far better used but it doesn't mean that it should be deleted.Eustachiusz (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categorize names by language and use articles (not categories) to describe the origins of names (religious or otherwise), the popularity of names amongst adherents of particular religions etc. DexDor (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if there's a policy to this effect, could you point to it?Eustachiusz (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (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:New Testament narrative

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, while the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles obviously contain narratives, it is not a sort of characteristic that is commonly and consistently associated with these books. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2017 (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:Christian narrative

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and move the only article to Category:Bible or Category:Bible in popular culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2017 (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:Magic Kaito

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: soft delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (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:My hero academia

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reopening the discussion upon request and relisted, see here (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). —Farix (t | c) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (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:Spokespersons

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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I'll acknowledge that "spokespeople" and "spokespersons" both exist as plural forms of "spokesperson", I'm not seeing any strong evidence that "spokespersons" is the preferred form, as was claimed when this was moved the other way half a decade ago in a CFR discussion that featured no participation besides the nominator. I did a Google News search to compare relatively current usage stats, and while I got 74,000 hits for "spokespeople" and 116,000 for "spokespersons", in reality the "spokespersons" results are artificially inflated about 30 to 40 per cent by hits on the singular "spokesperson" and the possessive "spokesperson's" (four false hits out of ten on the first page of results alone!) -- which means that there's not actually a statistically significant difference between the usages, and I can't find any English usage guide that prescribes "spokespersons" over "spokespeople" either. And so, if we have to arbitrarily pick one or the other because they're effectively equal, then it's better to pick the one that's more consistent with things like Category:Sportspeople and Category:Businesspeople, and thus more rationally predictable by users who don't already have the insider baseball tip on it. Though certainly we should maintain the "persons" form as a categoryredirect. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our naming conventions aren't governed solely by what's preferred in the UK — they're governed by worldwide English usage. If there were a UK-specific subcategory for the British ones, it could certainly be named "British spokespersons" on that basis, but worldwide, there's no clearcut preference for "spokespersons". So for the unnationalized parent category we're basically left tossing a coin between alternatives that are about equal in worldwide usage, and accordingly I've already explained in my nomination statement how I believe we should make that otherwise arbitrary choice. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. I'm saying that the category is already named "Spokespersons" and given that it is most common in the UK, per WP:ENGVAR it should be left as it is. Especially given there's no evidence that "Spokespeople" is more common than spokespersons in the rest of the world either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But where's the evidence that it's less common? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that relevant? The term has no strong association with a particular country. The current name is common in a major English-speaking country. WP:ENGVAR says we therefore leave it as it is. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence that it's more common? Fully 40 per cent of the "spokespersons" hits I got on a Google News search were matches for the singular "spokesperson" or the possessive "spokesperson's", thus not counting as evidence of the term's plural form — and leaving "spokespersons" almost exactly equal in usage to "spokespeople". Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (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:Political spokesperson

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:Political spokespersons. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Political spokesperson to Category:Political spokespeople
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia categories are named in the plural, not the singular, because they exist to contain multiple entries. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but organization refer to their spokesperson more frequently than to their spokespeople. I think it should remain and an additional category created.--Wikipietime (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because most organizations only have one spokesperson rather than multiple spokespeople — you've completely missed the point, which is that our category contains multiple people and not just one person. The category name is not governed by whether the Republican Party would say "Kayleigh McEnany is our spokesperson" or "Kayleigh McEnany is our spokespeople" when referring to her as an individual — it's governed by the total overall worldwide number of spokespeople for anything that we have articles about to file in our category with her. And we have more than one. Bearcat (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a "person" is a member or a larger universe of "people". A person has the inference or a sole individual and therefore has a distinction and utility. The use of "spokesperson" indicates that there exist a designated person, as opposed to a group of people. It should stand. --Wikipietime (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are completely missing the point. Our categories are not named in the singular just because each individual entry in the category is a single person or thing rather than multiple people or things — they're named in the plural, because the category as a whole represents a group. Donald Trump is one president of the United States, not several, but the category for that characteristic is still named Presidents, because it contains all the presidents and not just him. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our naming conventions aren't governed solely by what's preferred in the UK. There are numerous other English-speaking countries in the world where there isn't a clearcut preference for spokespersons over spokespeople, and the UK doesn't get to override everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above and WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2017 (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:Bhutanese women politicians

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 per current convention, without prejudice to a fresh broader nomination changing the convention (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NC for this tree is currently "Country women in politics", not "Country women politicians", per Category:Women in politics by nationality. There may be a case to be made that the categories should be renamed to something else (maybe even "women politicians"), but that wouldn't apply to this category in isolation -- it would need to be addressed as a comprehensive batch discussion of the whole tree. So unless somebody's prepared to formulate a batch nomination on the whole shebang, this should be moved to conform to the standard rather than standing alone as the sole outlier. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why in politics is the convention, in fact it looks less gender neutral to me as if it's rare for a woman to be a politician. Why not just women politicians like women writers etc. @Ipigott: @Rosiestep:♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why I said there may be a case that the standard convention should be moved from that to this instead. But that would require a batch nomination on all of the affected categories, so that all potential views one way or the other can be considered — we can't establish a consensus like that in a minor discussion over just one outlier from the way the others are currently named. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much easier to keep to one convention.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Comment. Agree, keep to one convention, per Ipigott. Also, agree that the convention should be, as Dr. Blofeld mentions, Country women politicians. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we establish consensus then to move them all to women politicians? We don't use "Bhutanese men in politics", so why do we do that with women?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 12 November 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_12&oldid=1083677847"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 12, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.