Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 27

< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

Category:Non Trinitarianism

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. Kbdank71 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non Trinitarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates existing category Category:Nontrinitarian denominations: in theory this could include people not just denominations but it seems not to. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counter offer rationale. "Anti" implies an opposition to something. In the case of some faiths, it is the case that they are not actively opposed to the doctrine; either they don't make a big deal of it or are happy to be ambiguous about their position. It would be more accurate therefore, to say that they do not positively support the doctrine, that is, they are "Non fooism". This preserves the possibility that they are apathetic about the propsition as oppsed to actively combatting it. Secondly, it allows Christian demoninations to be assigned, unambiguously, as being either "Fooism" or "Non fooism" without pejorative terms being introduced. This allows neat dichotomous categories to be created. Ulimately, this was my intention with this category. That is, both Category:Trinitarianism and Category:Non Trinitarianism would become children of Category:Trinitarian dichotomy. This (compelling) logic is already present in the related categories of Category:Chalcedonianism and Category:Non Chalcedonianism which are in turn children of Category:Chalcedonian dichotomy. In this way it can be sen that Category:Nontrinitarian denominations is either a child of Category:Non Trinitarianism (along with the technical terms and people associated with Non Trinitarianism) or it can instead be merged into the parent category of Category:Non Trinitarianism. The latter is my preference. Also, the main article should be Re-named to "Non Trinitarism", but that's a discussion for another day perhaps. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Regarding the counter proposal, I expect that it is far more defining to be involved in "anti-trinitarianism" than it is to be involved in "non-trinitarianism", so I think Category:Antitrinitarianism should exist. If a church is ambiguous about its position or doesn't really care, chances are there are not reliable sources that would call them "non-trinitarian", so categorization would not be necessary. Not every Christian denomination needs to be categorized as either trinitarian or non-trinitarian—only those that are described as such in reliable sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm struggling to understand the logic of user Good Ol'factory. On the one hand he wants to retain the category "Nontrinitarian denominations", hence his "merge" vote; on the other hand he says that categorization would not be necessary which would lead one to conclude that he would advocate a "Delete" vote for all concerned. A third strand of his logic is that one or both categories could proceed if reliable sources could be found, which might, one is bound to conclude, lead him to advocate an "Oppose" vote. Like I say, I'm confused by his rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first assumption, that I want to retain Category:Nontrinitarian denominations, assumes too much about something I did not directly express an opinion on. That category has not been nominated for deletion here; if it was, then I might express a direct opinion on it. It may well be overcategorization, but that's a consideration for another day, or at least a different discussion. The bottom line of this nomination for me is that Category:Non Trinitarianism is duplicative of a pre-existing category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (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:Tennis tournaments in Texas

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 with Category:Tennis in Texas. Kbdank71 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Tennis tournaments in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Procedural move. The following was listed at WP:Stub types for deletion, for some reason. Relisting with no !vote.Grutness...wha? 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary category. There is no categories for every federal state in the USA. This category appears only in Texas Open (tennis)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:11, 27 November 2010 (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:Southern University at Baton Rouge alumni

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) 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Southern University at Baton Rouge alumni to Category:Southern University alumni
Nominator's rationale: Southern University is only in Baton Rouge anyway, so this is a redundant category. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2010 (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:Main page

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: category deleted by its creator, Rich Farmbrough. —David Levy 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Main page to Category:Main Page
Nominator's rationale: Almost-empty category that's identical (except for a capitalisation difference) to the suggested merge target. If we want to avoid tagging the Main Page as uncategorised, as "Cat:Main page" says it's meant to do, we could always place the Main Page in "Cat:Main Page". Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2010 (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:Documentary films about the visual arts

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. Kbdank71 16:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Documentary films about the visual arts to Category:Documentary films about visual arts
Nominator's rationale: It just occurred to me that we could do without the article in this category name. I think it may have snuck in there because the parent category, Category:Documentary films about the arts does need a "the," at least to my ears. But I would suggest that the renamed category works fine without it, and generally we do avoid using unnecessary articles in names for things here. Anyone agree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "the trade" they're usually (often erroneously) referred to as the visual arts, so I'd expect the article to be there. I say often erroneously because several "visual" arts are every bit as much auditory (e.g., performance art, mixed-media art), so it's not a brilliant name for them. It gets the point across of what they are, though, and other than the somewhat pompous "fine arts", I cannot think of a better alternative. Grutness...wha? 22:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2010 (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 expatriate basketball people in Canada

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/withdrawn. Kbdank71 16:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American expatriate basketball people in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is being applied towards non-Canadians who played for the Toronto Raptors (or the Vancouver Grizzlies). It's redundant because the article should already have a "People from __" category, and a "Toronto Raptors players" category. Besides the redundancy, it seems to imply that they have taken a residence in Canada instead of the reality of the subject temporarily playing for a team. CutOffTies (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (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:Amazon

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. Kbdank71 16:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Amazon to Category:Amazon River
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The key article is at Amazon River, and the category's current name is somewhat ambiguous (it could be about an online book retailers or a big woman). Most other categories within Category:Categories named after rivers seem to have "River" as part of their names, too, so it wouldn't make it an odd-one-out. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, changed to R per nom. Now Category:Amazon mythology is what I call a confusing name. Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that! Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2010 (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:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom

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: repopulate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category appears to have been emptied and blanked out of process. It is part of the larger Category:Cricket grounds by country and Category:Sports venues in the United Kingdom schemes. Repopulate. - Eureka Lott 00:56, 27 November 2010 (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.