Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Category:Fictional characters who can size changeing[edit]

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:Fictional characters who can change size. No clear consensus to delete. I'm renaming it to be grammatically correct, but am not prejudicing a further delete nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters who can size changeing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: At a minimum, the category title should use correct grammar: Category:Fictional characters who can change size. However, merely being able to change size is not by itself a 'superhuman ability' (see weight gain, weight loss), so we need either to find a way to accurately reflect a defining characteristic to be categorized or to remove the category altogether. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Comics has been notified. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I was expecting to say delete but this is a defining characteristic of all 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing fictional characters by ability is generally discoraged. It is even worse when in fact it is something that anyone can do. True, some may be able to do it more quickly than others, but no person I know is permanently locked at a given weight, and since I have known people who lost over 100 lbs in 4 months, changing size can be done in some cases quite expeditiously.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's what those five characters are known for. Categories exist to help people interested in one article, find other articles of that type. A rename to perhaps "Fictional characters whose super power is changing size" or something of that sort may be in order. The Incredible Hulk changes size when he transforms, getting a bit taller, so you don't want it to include any size or shape change at all. Just those that transform to a considerate amount, which the five entries listed do. And this doesn't include shapeshifters of course. Perhaps Fictional characters who significantly alter their height. Of course, then you'd have Plastic Man, Mr. Fantastic, Elastic Man, and others. Is there a word to describe changing of one's size, which leaves out them simply loosing weight, or whatnot? I don't really think there would be any confusion. How about Category:Fictional characters that can alter their physical size and mass. Hmm... Alice in Wonderland could grow large or small by use of the drink me, eat me thing. The Micronauts (comics) commonly used technology to make themselves our size, or very tiny, as well as others from our world brought into theirs. Does everyone on that list have it as a special power, not needing any outside device or whatnot. Or is it sometimes caused by technology they had, that anyone could use? Fictional comic book characters who can alter their size and mass. Dream Focus 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note there are now 8 entries to the list. I believe it should be Category:Comic book characters that can alter their physical size and mass. That way we only include the comic book people, which are all that is there anyway, and not Alice from Alice and Wonderland or other fictional characters that just happen to sometimes eat or drink or use something to change their size. Some of the DC comic book characters only have their ability do to a belt, which apparently could be used by anyone, but the character is notable enough to have their own article, and is known for having used it to change their size, that their thing. Dream Focus 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - super powers categories and lists have been on a constant round robin. In the end, from a policy POV, powers of each character, though perhaps broadly similar, are different enough (not to mention issues of whether gained through a device or object rather than inherent to the character) that each member's inclusion in such a group needs to be explained. And that requires a list rather than a category. That has been the prior consensus of the comics Wikiproject several times, and has been the result here in CFD as well. - jc37 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect you're right that a list would be the most viable way, short of a topic article about this element of fiction, to present this information. Dream Focus' comment above seems to support the notion that the characteristic is defining for each character but also that the characteristic is not something that can be clearly defined for the purpose of categorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2012 (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:Photography companies[edit]

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 close. This is not a CFD matter, and it is being resolved elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose adding VE-JA-DE Products to category of photography companies. That is the name of the company that produced several thousand cameras sold in the U.S. and other countries between 1924 and 1961. Owner was Vincent Joseph Dunker. A wikipedia article with that name is currently being evaluated. It can be seen at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Vincent_Joseph_Dunker#References. The suggested category for that article is the wikipedia category Photography companies, thus the name VE-JA-DE Products should be added to that category.RodgerCarter RodgerCarter 19:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If I follow this, this is just a request for categorization of an existing article, and from what I can tell, that article, which at present is a redirect, is so categorized. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this appears to be a categorization request which was completed by User:Oculi. As the nominator was contacted on his talk page, I think it's safe to remove this thread. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (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:Fictional Japanese swordsmen[edit]

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional Japanese swordsmen to Category:Fictional Japanese sword fighters
Nominator's rationale: I propose renaming this category Fictional sword users as swordsmen is a bit sexist. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Jupiter Optimus Maximus is a blocked sock puppeteer. User:Anthony Appleyard opened this case, presumably copying it from elsewhere. - jc37 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it from Category talk:Fictional Japanese swordsmen, where it was a move-an-article--type discussion that a bot routinely displayed as an "unsigned or bad format item" in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. 05:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)
  • It excludes characters such as Taki (Soulcalibur) because of their gender. Also notice that the main category is "sword fighters", and not swordsmen". --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator for gender neutrality. Note that while the parent category is Category:Fictional sword fighters, the grandparent category is Category:Swordsmen. That should also be renamed, so I have added it to this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Category:Swordsmanship and Swordsmanship? Oculi (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I !voted too quickly, and then did a little research. (I know, wrong order) which has led me to striking my original !vote.
    So far as I can sew, "swordsman" is the standard term for this, and should be retained. See the wikipedia article swordsmanship, and note ghits: 11,000,000 for "swordsman" versus only "sword+fighter" 280,000 for "sword fighter". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The problem with the present category is that it implies male gender, but a glance at Category:Fictional sword fighters -- presumably a parent -- suggests the presence of some female names. Most are male, but apparently not all. If we do not rename here, we ought to rename that category and purge it of women, who would need to go into a new female category. No vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We ought not, I think, to separate male and female swordsmen or sword fighters unless the intersection of swordsmanship and gender is, by itself, defining. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - "Swordsmanship" is a technical term whereas a "swordsman" is a man with a sword, no? The term's frequency no doubt reflects the fact that historically, far more males waved the things around (insert Freudian analysis here). My judgement is that "sword fighter" would be the appropriate, gender-neutral term so this category (and Category:Swordsmen) should be renamed. After all, we use "firefighters" rather than "firemen", although the latter is still widely used. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 07:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it perhaps the case that "swordsman" is one of those words (like "actor") that can, for purposes of categorization, apply to males and females alike? -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A man who uses a sword is a swordsman; a woman who uses a sword is a swordswoman; a group of men and women together who all use swords are swordsmen. There would be no slight to the women. Saying swordsmen and swordswomen of such a group might be acceptible, but also might imply they are not on par with each other or simply call undue attention to the fact it is a mixed group. To attempt something like swordspersons (and in my opinion sword fighters) would be precived as an attempt at humor . . . perhaps at their expense . . . not wise when they have swords. WP:Use modern language advises (it is not policy) not using any invented words of phrases to attemp gender-nutrality. Is it possible to redirect categories? So if you put Category:Swordswomen on an article it would really go into Category:Swordsmen, but show as Swordswomen on the article? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that certainly was a chuckle-inducing mental image. :)
    Hard redirects, of the type #REDIRECT [[TARGET PAGE TITLE]], do not work well for categories and are discouraged; however, a soft redirect using {{Category redirect}} would largely achieve what you describe. Essentially, having a category redirect at Category:Swordswomen (which I've created) would ensure that when an article is placed into the category a bot will (within a few hours) move it into Category:Swordsmen. 'Swordswomen' will not show on the article, however, and I know of no way to accomplish that part. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Cambridge University Press, "Swordsman" can be a gender-neutral term. Dunno what the OED says about it because I haven't got an edition and can't be bothered to pay the online subscription fee. Is it perhaps worth pointing out on category pages (with a Wiktionary link) that the term is neutral? It's a shame neologisms are forbidden as Category:Swordsmyn would be a politically-correct stroke of genius. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 07:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I agree it should be gender neutral "sword fighters". Or if the female ones get a lot of press for their gender, then a separate group can be made for them. Otherwise, just keep it altogether, with a gender neutral name. Dream Focus 12:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard-of-Earth and Suriel1981. We should not pursue gender neutrality in wording when reliable sources do not or suggest it is unnecessary. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (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:Rebels[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rebels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that there is really that much in common with William Kunstler and Gaitana. This is a more-or-less random assortment of persons who rejected some authority and it's not clear to me that there are sufficient inclusion criteria. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, and WP:TROUT the nominator for not looking at the category more closely before nominating it, and for nominating the parent category to a large tree without even acknowledging the existence of the rest of tree.
    This is primarily a container category. It sub-categories include 50 by-country categories under Category:Rebels by nationality, many of which are broken down into sub-categories for members of particular rebel groups. For example, Category:Ugandan rebels includes Category:Lord's Resistance Army rebels‎. There are also non-geographic broader categories such as Category:Rebel slaves.
    The nominator cites two articles which don't have much in common, but two miscategorsiations is not grounds to pull the cornerstone out from underneath a whole category tree. William Kunstler was was a radical lawyer rather than a rebel, so he should not be categorised as a rebel. SOFIXIT, rather than deleting the category.
    Gaitana was a hugely important figure in the history of Colombia, and should be categorised under Category:Colombian rebels‎ ... SOFIXIT.
    The nominator is right that there are too many articles in the undifferentiated root category, but the solution is to remove miscategorised articles and disperse the others to the appropriate subcats. It may also be helpful to tag the category with {{Category diffuse}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this category to hold figures such as Kenji Hatanaka and Masataka Ida, who are famous (or notable) specifically for their acts of rebellion. If there were no Rebels category, they would simply be listed under Category:Japanese military personnel of World War II, and would not be defined by their Rebel identity. ... While I can appreciate the argument that a general Rebels category is perhaps too broad or too diverse, sub-categories such as the individual Rebels by Nationality categories can be quite useful - grouping together figures such as Kenji Hatanaka and Shunkan, who actually have quite a bit in common. If I were looking for Fujiwara no Narichika and couldn't remember his name, the "Japanese rebels" category would be quite useful. LordAmeth (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to thank someone for creating a category about our nationally ranked Rebels! So of course, Keep. OK, really? Delete or Rename since this is too generic of a name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just continue to subcategorise it into narrower categories, as is standard practice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Reorganize to include Category:Militant rebels, Category:Criminal rebels, Category:Cultural rebels, etc to differentiate the kinds of rebels and move all the sub-categorys into them. But keep as it is a needed category. The existing sub-categories may need "militant" added to them to be clear what goes where. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the category is kept, I'd be opposed to modifying 'rebel' (noun) with the word 'militant' (adjective). A rebel of any type is, by definition, militant in the context of his or her chosen cause. Rebellion of other types, such as teenage rebellion or cultural rebellion, seems unsuitable for categorization either because it is not sufficiently defining or excessively subjective. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that inclusion criterion should be made very clear if this cat is kept. - jc37 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is this different than Category:Terrorists? - jc37 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A terrorist is defined by his or her intentions, which are difficult to verify objectively, whereas a rebel is defined by his or her actions. At least that's how I think of it... -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Rebellion is a defined, verifiable and mostly objective act that is generally defining for individuals who engage in it. The issue, raised in the nomination, of the lack of similarity between William Kunstler and Gaitana, is solved by applying the inclusion criterion of 'armed resistance' as noted in the category description and removing Kunstler from the category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the inclusion criteria is not clear. Do we put Robert E. Lee in this category? George Washington? Malcolm X? the participants in the 1967 Detroit "race riot"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2012 (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:Tributaries of Rock Creek (Monocacy River)[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Tributaries of Rock Creek (Monocacy River) to Category:Tributaries of the Monocacy River
Nominator's rationale: Merge. After merging 8 stubs, it left this category with two articles. So upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2012 (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:V-2 rocket facilities of World War II[edit]

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 & rename to Category:German V-2 rocket facilities. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:V-2 rocket facilities of World War II to Category:World War II sites of Nazi Germany
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not convinced that this TfT creation is needed. If kept, this should be renamed to the simpler Category:German V-2 rocket facilities. And yes, there were V-2 launches in the US as I understand it, but after the war. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support the renaming, either. There are currently no articles that don't fit the current category, and any post-war testing should probably be in its own category if it ever got broken into seperate articles. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I looked at one of my books last night (V1-V2 Hitler's Vengeance on London The Full Story of the Year Hitler's Guided Missiles Fell on London by David Johnson). There were also some V-2 launch sites in northern France (near Eperlecques & Brecourt), and while they never fired any rockets they were certainly going to had the allies not destroyed them first. I also found a page [1] that has a good general description of the sites. These were also not V-1 sites, but V-2 specific. So I still think leaving this as it is would be the best course of action should either a) articles on those specific sites ever get written or b) post-war testing articles are ever written, they can get their own category to differentiate and not end up with another tree of sub-cats. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2012 (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.

Church building back again[edit]

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 Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in the United States to Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings in the United States. For the rest, no consensus leaning towards Keep, as there is no proposal for a replacement parallel category name within Category:Christian organizations (although Local church could be a lead article to follow). The original decision at the top level in 2008 was explicitly not intended to be carried down all the way to the local level, and there is clearly not a current consensus to do so. If the supporters of the "church buildings" hierarchy (parts of which I have also helped with), or dual hierarchy proposal, have addressed the comparison with Category:Synagogues, or for that matter Category:Hospitals which fits just fine within both Category:Buildings and structures by type and Category:Medical and health organizations, then I missed it. (For reference, see also recent discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state and the following section.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Ohio to Category:Church buildings in Ohio
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Oklahoma to Category:Church buildings in Oklahoma
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Oregon to Category:Church buildings in Oregon
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Vermont to Category:Church buildings in Vermont
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Virginia to Category:Church buildings in Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Churches in South Carolina to Category:Church buildings in South Carolina
Propose renaming Category:Churches in South Dakota to Category:Church buildings in South Dakota
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Idaho to Category:Church buildings in Idaho
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Illinois to Category:Church buildings in Illinois
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Indiana to Category:Church buildings in Indiana
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Iowa to Category:Church buildings in Iowa
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Kansas to Category:Church buildings in Kansas
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Kentucky to Category:Church buildings in Kentucky
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Minnesota to Category:Church buildings in Minnesota
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Nevada to Category:Church buildings in Nevada
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Washington (state) to Category:Church buildings in Washington (state)
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Washington, D.C. to Category:Church buildings in Washington, D.C.
Propose renaming Category:Churches in West Virginia to Category:Church buildings in West Virginia
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Wisconsin to Category:Church buildings in Wisconsin
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Wyoming to Category:Church buildings in Wyoming
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Nebraska to Category:Church buildings in Nebraska
Propose renaming Category:Churches in New Hampshire to Category:Church buildings in New Hampshire
Propose renaming Category:Churches in New Jersey to Category:Church buildings in New Jersey
Propose renaming Category:Churches in New Jersey by county to Category:Church buildings in New Jersey by county
Propose renaming Category:Churches in New Mexico to Category:Church buildings in New Mexico
Propose renaming Category:Churches in New York to Category:Church buildings in New York
Propose renaming Category:Churches in New York by county to Category:Church buildings in New York by county
Propose renaming Category:Churches in North Carolina to Category:Church buildings in North Carolina
Propose renaming Category:Churches in North Dakota to Category:Church buildings in North Dakota
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Maine to Category:Church buildings in Maine
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Maryland to Category:Church buildings in Maryland
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Massachusetts to Category:Church buildings in Massachusetts
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Michigan to Category:Church buildings in Michigan
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Mississippi to Category:Church buildings in Mississippi
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Missouri to Category:Church buildings in Missouri
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Montana to Category:Church buildings in Montana
Propose renaming Category:Churches in Montana to Category:Church buildings in Montana
Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Former Roman Catholic churches in the United States to Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Despite several discussions here on this we have one editor who is apparently going to oppose these as speedies. As stated in the previous nominations, the last being Jan 22, church is ambiguous. The vast majority of the content and the parent categories for these are building related establishing the fact that this is the correct action. There is nothing to prevent the opposer from adding other non ambiguous categories to the articles as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – the parent tree is for buildings, and non-buildings should be removed. Oculi (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator, and to conform with the convention of similar categories (which was established per the consensus of numerous previous discussions at CFD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To make theese categories more useful and clear. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. In addition, I note that User:Orlady restored Category:Churches in Tennessee. I've put it back in accordance with the previous decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The recent discussion closed as "No consensus", so it seems that the status quo enforced by an ill-considered speedy rename shortly before the discussion started is now the law of the land to be enforced unquestioningly.
I and others who opposed the move of "churches" to "church buildings" said that we didn't object to a "church buildings" hierarchy as long as there was a place to put articles about churches per se (and, candidly, I think that a "Churches" category is the ideal place for articles about churches). In that other discussion, it was said that there are perfectly good systems for categorizing articles about churches that aren't articles about buildings, but no one was able to satisfactorily explain what those systems are. Please note that my query at the end of the following exchange got no response;
  1. Rename all per nom, to eliminate some last vestiges of a long-standing ambiguity which causes no end of confusion and miscategorisation. Note that after renaming, some articles may need to be removed from the category; will the nominator undertake to do any necessary recategorisation after renaming? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • If no one else is willing, I guess it can be added to my queue. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
o What do you propose to name the new categories? IMO, Monteagle Sunday School Assembly belongs in Category:Churches in Tennessee, the "Catholic churches in Connecticut" parent category for St. Ladislaus Church (South Norwalk, Connecticut) belongs in Category:Churches in Connecticut, etc. (Note that these are the existing category names.) --Orlady (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
+ They belong somewhere in the Category:Religion tree. Not sure where and this would since it be a case by case decision. These will probably be an existing catagery. But they clearly should not be in categories with ambiguous names. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
+ I think it would be a good idea to identify the new category structure before dismantling the current one. If these aren't going to be categorized as "churches" any more (because that term is deemed to be ambiguous), then what are they? Can we envision Category:Christian congregations, parishes, and similar bodies that conduct worship or other activities in a single location in Your State Name Here? (Oops -- that won't work, because many megachurches have multiple locations.) --Orlady (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Two weeks later, no one has explained what noun, other than "church", the building-centric categorizers of Wikipepia deem to be acceptable for characterizing entities that are universally known as "churches". So I created Category:Churches in Tennessee as a semi-parallel structure to Category:Church buildings in Tennessee because a lot of the articles that you have forced into the "buildings" categories aren't about buildings. --Orlady (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be categories for parishes and congregations If that is what you are asking about, then those categories should be used or created as needed. This type of evidence you are providing proves that church is ambiguous and that it should not be used without qualification in a category name. The fact that something in the building tree acquired other types of articles shows that there was a problem. The renames are clearly only the start of a needed cleanup. Obviously some church building categories are already clear as to their purpose like Category:Stone churches or Category:Carpenter Gothic churches in New York‎. One could also argue that something like Category:Closed churches in New York is also clear without adding building to the name, but that may be desirable for uniformity. As to what area of religion. That is going to vary since the category trees are not uniform. So for RC parishes, they would go under Category:Roman Catholic Church organisation since the dioceses are there and the parishes are the next lower level. I don't believe that anyone is really advocating that parishes, congregations and buildings belong in one category, but the discussion seems to be saying that is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is only recently, as a result of category moves, that categories like Category:Pentecostal churches in Tennessee (now a subcategory of Category:Church buildings in Tennessee) came to be thought of as "church building" categories. Several of the articles in that category, which is now a subcategory of "Church buildings", are decidedly not about buildings, and articles like Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ are decidedly not about "congregations" (much less "parishes", which do not exist in most Protestant denominations), but are about "churches". --Orlady (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose Possible: OK, this is just silly. Do any of you who go to church go to "church" or "church building" on Sunday? When you see the names of churches, you see something like "First Lutheran Church" or "Market Street Baptist Church". I have yet to see a church named "Blankville United Methodist Church Building". This is semantics and totally unnecessary. These are churches, not "church buildings". When people actually start calling church "church buildings" and churches rename along the lines of "St. Andrew's Roman Catholic Church Building", then yes, we can rename the categories, but until then, this is just plain stupid and totally unnecessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps you could have a sub-cat for "church buildings" if there are enough articles about the buildings themselves. But most of these articles are about the organizations, not the buildings. If the concern is that there is a "buildings" parent category, then it would make more sense to remove the parent category than to rename these. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • After having edited or viewed virtually everyone of these, I don't see how your claim holds water. In fact a significant percentage of these are so devoid of content that the actual denomination is not discernible from the content or the sources. So clearly those articles are about the buildings. Even if your case was valid, then you would still should be arguing for another name since there is no way that church in these category names is anything except ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But none of these are called "church buildings", they are just called "churches". This is renaming an entire group of buildings (simply called "churches") into something that no one calls them. This is like renaming all of the hospital categories from "hospitals" to "hospital buildings". Do you call your local hospital a "hospital building" or just a "hospital"? What about renaming all supermarket categories from "grocery stores" to "grocery store buildings". It's the same thing. There is no such thing as a "church building". From the Catholic Church, to the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Adventists, the Quakers, and others, they call their places of worship "churches". The Jews call them "synagogues", the Christians call them "churches". Not "synagogue buildings" or "church buildings". As a compromise, I think "Places of Worship in <State>" would be much better as each synagogue or church is a place of worship, regardless if it is retired or still active. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Vegaswikian is correct in saying that these categories contain many pages that are devoid of meaningful content, but the existence of those pages should not be the basis for defining the category structure. These (articles like Woodland Baptist Church) are known as "stubs", and the appropriate category for them is Category:Church building stubs. We don't build entire category structures around content-free stubs, thus making meaningful articles like Saddleback Church and Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ essentially homeless. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It still doesn't matter. A "church" is not a "church building", it is simply a "church". Notice the three you named, I will use the first for this example, Woodland Baptist Church, not Woodland Baptist Church Building. You can't rename something it is not. A "church" is a "church", not a "church building". You find a church out there that calls itself a "church building" and I will withdraw my oppose. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moves Yes, "church" has multiple meanings, but that does not justify a declaration that the word "churches" can't be used as the main noun in a category name. Instead of trashing a structure that has been working reasonably well, create a subhierarchy for "church buildings", while at the same time ensuring that denominations, dioceses, etc., are not misplaced in categories for "Churches." Earlier discussions suggested that these proposed moves are premised on the erroneous notion that the only potentially notable aspect of an individual church is the building it occupies. The building is, indeed, the only basis for not deleting minimal stubs like White Chapel (Rossview, Tennessee), and it's understandable that a person would have a pretty dim view of church articles after looking at a couple thousand stubs like that one. However, articles like Saddleback Church and Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ demonstrate that individual churches can be notable without having significant buildings, and articles like First Baptist Church in America and Riverside Church demonstrate that an individual church can be notable for both its building and other aspects. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Church buildings" can only mean articles about the structures, while "Churches" can either be about the building or the congregation. As this category includes entries for both congregations and their buildings, the existing terminology seems most appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Do we have Category:School buildings, Category:Hospital buildings or Category:Castle buildings? Per general naming conventions, the category title should refer to corresponding articles and not the category structure. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is a distinction between a congregation and a church building but, except when a congregation has moved and left behind a notable historic building, these are usually interchangeable with articles. Even if the point is correct that the articles are more about buildings (and more may mention the architecture than the prayer group) this seems like redundant English.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the renaming - "churches" can refer to either the congregation or the building in common useage; honestly, after a bit more thought, I don't see the need for the renaming. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: As I noted here:

St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York) is in these (among other) categories: Category:Churches in Manhattan, Category:Religious buildings completed in 1878, Category:National Historic Landmarks in New York City & Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals of the United States. Why? Becuase it is a Church that is used for worship, it is a Building, it is a Historic Landmark, and it is a Cathedral. Therefore, Add, Category:Church buildings in XYZ but do not rename Category:Churches in XYZ. They are really two seperate things: one is a category of church buildings, the other of the entity of the church, which includes the people, the grounds, outbuildings, etc. If such a renaming goes through we'd also have to rename Category:Synagogues in Connecticut to Synagogue Buildings in Connecticut, and Category:Mosques in Connecticut to Category:Mosque Buildings in Connecticut. In every state. We would logically also have to also change Category:Libraries, Category:Seats of local government, Category:Fire stations in the United States, Category:Police stations in the United States etc, plus subs, since those would also be equally "vague". In every state. The list is close to endless, as every type of building would have to be "fixed". Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... which was not replied to and therefore I also consider "The result of the discussion was: Rename." by user:Timrollpickering at 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC) to have been at best premature. It certainly wasn't consensus. All of the previously renamed "Church in X state" categories should be restored. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose This is way, way too disruptive for the microscopic improvement in clarity it might afford. Hardly any parish is notable independent from its building, and churches that are denominations already have their own hierarchies. This would also require renaming all the NRHS categories for consistency. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose I do not go to a church building, I got to a church not a church building JayJayTalk to me 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mangoe etc. A long-standing mess, but best left untidy. It would be crazy, above all in the US, to have have different categories for buildings and congregations. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Though I disagree that a "long-standing mess" should be "best left untidy". I think the way forward might be comparable to some articles we have on certain comic book characters. When a character name is the same as the name of a comic book that they appeared in, they first both reside in the same article, and thus the page is categorised into both character and comic book title categories. When there is sufficient info to split the page along those lines (per WP:Summary style), then the character cats go to one and the comic book title cats go to the other. The same would seem to be a good solution here. The church page deals both with the grouping(s) of people (church(es)) and the building(s) (church(es)). And when enough info allows for a split, then categorisation is adjusted accordingly. - jc37 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The Church buildings are the way to go. Megachurches, especially multi-site megachurches, are more or less denominations and should go in a category with that name. Another possibility would be Category:Church congregations. The problem with "Church" is that it is a generic term that can refer to state-wide or National bodies with 100s of parishes or other specific names for local divisions that meet in several buildings, it can refer to various groups like the Roman Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that function as world-wide Churches (the later more so than the former, because it does not conceive of anything less than the world-wide body as being "The Church"). There will be overlap in categorization because some articles cover multiple aspects of an institution, but that is unavoidable. These categories primarily consist of church buildings that are on the national register of historical places, or otherwise notable as buildings, and may or may not be currently used for religious functions. Also, some of these buildings have been the home to multiple religious bodies over time. We need to split out the non-Church build articles, but since that is the bulk of the articles here, we should move the set of articles that way. There is no universal meaning of church. As a Mormon (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) I use it for The Church and I also speak of "going to church", "coming home from church". In these cases it is not just that I went to the meetinghouse (which I call the Ypsilanti Chapel, but will also refer to as "the church" or "the church building") but also because I went to Sunday services. This is why as a youth when I went to seminary (LDS) daily I did not consider myself "going to church everyday" because church was the sunday service, not the weekday scripture class. However the unit that meets on Sunday, the body of the saints, is not a church (although the Book of Mormon as well as the New Testament uses it in this sense) the body of the saints is the ward, there is one Church, and that is the world-wide body. There is no unambiguous way to use the word church, because so many people use it for very different things depending on context, context that is not provided by a one or two word category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion that "multi-site megachurches, are more or less denominations and should go in a category with that name" is POV-ish, and it is easily demonstrated to be erroneous. In fact, many megachurches are affiliated with recognized denominations. Exhibit A: Saddleback Church is a multisite megachurch affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, a denominational body. Thus, the Saddleback Church is decidedly not a distinct denomination. First Baptist Church of Springdale and Bellevue Baptist Church are additional examples of multi-site megachurches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Exhibit B: New Hope Christian Fellowship is (according to its Wikipedia article) a megachurch that claims to have affiliates worldwide, and it is itself a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel denomination. Exhibit C: James River Assembly of God is a multi-site megachurch affiliated with the Assemblies of God, another denomination. Exhibit D: The oddly named 12Stone is a multisite megachurch affiliated with the Wesleyan denomination. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megachurches are the anomaly here, being defined by being (a) evangelical Protestant and (b) large in attendance or membership. There are of course liberal Protestant and Catholic congregations which are as large. The kind of logic that is driving the present proposal would also tend to split up the megachurch category along the same lines, because of the varieties of polity involved. But the category exists as it does because media analysts ignore the fine distinctions and have created a category which, from some perspectives, doesn't make sense. Mangoe (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megachurches are an anomaly, but for purposes of this discussion they are just one of the many topics that demonstrate the wrongness of the notion that articles about individual ("local") churches are nothing more than articles about buildings. There are plenty of other examples of non-megachurch church articles that do not belong solely in "buildings" categories. For example, I think of a couple that I worked on in recent weeks: First Congregational Church of Litchfield and First Congregational Church of Guilford; both articles are largely about the buildings that these churches currently occupy, but both churches are much older than their current buildings, and the histories recounted in those two articles extend far beyond the histories of buildings. --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, the article megachurch used to be in Category:Types of churches, but on 15 January that category got moved to Category:Types of church buildings, because 5 discussants at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 26 had agreed that "churches" are nothing more than the buildings they occupy, ratifying the views expressed earlier by 4 discussants at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 17#Category:Churches. A megachurch is decidedly not a type of building. It's unfortunate that those earlier CfDs had so little participation; as near as I can determine, those discussions are the source of the supposed consensus that the current proposed move (and several others that occurred in recent weeks) is intended to rigidly enforce. --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the reason why they are anomalous is precisely the source of the problem with separating these articles out: Crystal Cathedral is an article about a building and about a ministry, other articles in the category are about congregations, some of them utterly independent and others not. It seems to me that it's too much trouble to try to puzzle out why each particular institution/building/whatever is notable, and that's basically what's going to happen in this renaming: most churches, even though they are active parishes, won't appear in the "church" hierarchy, and a bunch of congregations won't appear in the building hierarchy because the NRHP doesn't care about the building they're in, and perhaps only a handful of articles will appear in both categories. Or maybe a lot of them will, or maybe people will battle back and forth. It seems to me a lot easier to live with the ambiguity and not have to review every single article to decide whether or not the congregation itself is notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article on Christ Church Chapel begins "The Christ Church Chapel is a religious building located at 61 Grosse Pointe Rd. in Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan." Also some of the articles in these categories, especially the sub-category of Quaker meetinghouses, are explicitly about buildings that are conceived of as buildings and never as institutions that exist beyond the buildings themselves. With the "former Catholic Churches" the problem is that in Catholic parlance the Church is a body at the Diocese level if not higher, and not the individual parishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not all congregations have the distinction of being the only religious group using the Church they are meeting in. Mormon Church buildings generally have multiple wards or branches meeting there. The building is thus not directly connected to the ward or branch, and their history only interlocks slightly. There are even many church buildings that have been used by multiple denominations, in several cases multiple denominations at the same time. So the equivalency of a building with the congregation that meets there is not an established fact. Some of these buildings never had a specific congregation meeting there, but were built with the intent to be used as a place of worship by different groups at different times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several participants in this discussion seem to be thinking exclusively, or almost exclusively, in terms of denominations that have strong hierarchical or centralized control. The Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Episcopal Church in the United States are examples of such. In these denominations, it may be true that the entire denomination considers itself to be "one church", while the local units are called "parishes", "congregations", "wards", or something else other than "church" (but if you look in the yellow pages or a similar directory, you they all will appear under "Churches", and in every case except possibly the LDS Church, the sign in front of the church's building(s) will include the noun "Church" in the name of the establishment). In contrast, in many U.S. denominations (examples being most Baptist groups and the United Church of Christ), each local church is an autonomous unit that affiliates voluntarily with its denomination -- it is not a component of a larger "church" but it is itself a distinct "church" that is affiliated with a denomination. Additionally, there are some Christian traditions (most Restoration Movement churches being an example) that have most of the attributes of denominations, but assert the complete independence of each of the individual churches that share the beliefs and practices of the denominational group, and there is a growing number of local churches (including many megachurches) that disclaim denominational affiliation. With the possible exception of the LDS Church (an exception I question, since the LDS members of my acquaintance refer to their local body as their "church"), the single universally accepted noun for all of these local religious establishments is "church". In most churches in my experience, the word "congregation" refers to the members or participants in a church, generally not including the preacher/minister/pastor and definitely not including the physical facilities of the church -- the word "congregation" is not a synonym for "church".
    Wikipedia should not try to reinvent the language by claiming that the noun "church" must be reserved exclusively to refer to denominations, and it's absurd to suggest that the only potentially encyclopedic aspect of a local church is the building it occupies. --Orlady (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge articles on buildings to a new category. We need a new category structure for articles that are on the buildings, and to make this set of categories into clearly part of the Churhces as religious institutions structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to a change from your earlier position. Would you be opposed to striking the one from 9 February above out? However, there is surely going to be an intersection of articles in both the Buildings and Church categories. Why not just add a new Buildings cat and call it a day? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The reason to not just create the building categories is that some articles clearly do not belong in the Church category. This applies most especially to Quaker meetinghouses and LAtter-day Saint meetinghouses. The articles in these cases are by default about the build because there is no eclesiastical structure that can be termed a "church" that corresponds to it. The Job Ross House article is so not concerned about the religious structure organization involved, we do not even learn if the LDS congregation meeting there was a ward or a branch (I would guess the later, but since there was a stake in Portland at the time, a ward ispossible). Oakland Inter-stake Center is another example. It was built to be used by multiple stakes, multiple LDS congregations that have no connection lower than being presided over by the same general authority in Salt Lake City could be meeting there at once. These items do not fit in the Church structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually do not strike my first vote, but strike my second one. I have decided that what I meant to say is if current name is kept, realign category so articles that are not at all about a religious organization and just about a place of worship are put in the places of worship category, and those that are about both a religious organization and places of worship remain in this category tree. If we chose that couse, I think we also need to remove these categories from the "places of worship" set. A multi-location Megachurch is no more a place of worship than is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per NeutralHomer. The proposed rename causes more semantic problems than it would purport to solve. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose many of these articles (even about a typical single-location church) will discuss the entire organization, not just the building. For those no longer active, or not notable as an organization, just as a historic building, then a subcat/relcat can be made. --99of9 (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't believe that the oppose positions really deal with the a key issue in the nomination that the current name is ambiguous. In fact they seem to suggest that the ambiguity may be a good thing. If you look at all of the articles here, most, if not virtually all, will include a notable building. Many lack defining information about the congregations that worship in the building. So a rename as proposed would fix more issues then it creates. So this would be a logical first step in dual parenting those articles that really do belong in both trees. I should point out, that there are a large number of church articles that give no indication to what denomination actually used the building, even if you read the sources provided in the article. Then you have the buildings that serve multiple denominations, some of which may not be christian. I guess someone could make the case that the result here should be to multi merge the current category into the one suggested and to at least one for the congregation, if any is specified. That would take time and require someone to go through every article before any changes happen and would require all changes to be made manually instead of by a bot. The proposal would allow most changes to be made by a bot, but still require someone to look at all articles to sort out the subset that would need to be added to additional categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got to be kidding. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Moreso in that he is at least coming at this from a perspective of attempting to apply consenses of past discussions to try to come up with an action plan for going forward.
    Where I disagree is that I think the cats should stay for the organisations, and if building cats are wanted, then that tree should be built/expanded, and the articles clearly only concerning buildings pared from the organisations tree; and honestly the pages themselves cleaned up. (And this being a group nom does complicate things a bit.)
    But anyway, to go through with this, rather than with his suggestion, means a fair amount of editorial work. Would you like to volunteer to help, Markvs88?
    Incidentally, if the perspective is that these cats are too ambiguous to be useful for navigation, let's discuss that, but at this stage, I think that that might need to be a new discussion to have any hope of finding consensus to delete. - jc37 03:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion? 1) He hasn't replied to my point nor Orlady's for *weeks*. 2) He could just add a new building cat instead or renaming ones that already exist for a valid non-building purpose. 3) I count the votes as at least 2:1 against the proposal. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a "vote". But besides that, you too are entitled to your opinion as well. - jc37 00:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "consensus" to move the "Churches" categories to "Church buildings" came in discussions that had minimal participation. Apparently, very few contributors had watchlisted the high-level container categories. Now that the renames affect categories that contain many individual pages, many more contributors have come to the discussion, and a different consensus seems to have emerged. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I meant more generally the consensus about categorisation as trees etc. Not this specific topic. Sorry for the confusion. - jc37 00:46, 26 February 2012 (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:Schoolhouses[edit]

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/no rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Schoolhouses to Category:Schools
Propose renaming Category:One-room schoolhouses to Category:One-room schools
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge and cleanup. If approved, the subcategories can be upmerged to appropriate parents. Schoolhouse is a dab page where two of the articles are school and one-room school. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but.... The subcategory Category:Schoolhouses in the United States needs to be gone over and its members split out into Category:Schools on the National Register of Historic Places since by and large these articles are in the schoolhouse category and have articles because the subjects are on the NRHP. The other subcategory, Category:One-room schoolhouses, should remain but should be renamed Category:One-room schools to reflect the main article. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK added the second one to the nom and tagging now. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone have an opinion if Prairie Queen Hotel belongs in the school tree? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to say no. Holding church in a movie theater doesn't turn that building into a church. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't school (an organization) and school (a building) be distinctly categorized? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Surely many historic schoolhouses are no longer used as schools? "Schoolhouses" I take to be essentially historic and small school buildings. Maybe the category name needs tightening, but they should be kept distinct from the vast mass of schools. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For similar reasons as the nom concerning churches directly above. Please consider my comments there as applying to here as well. (Saves me copy-pasting : ) - jc37 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a move that would only serve to increase confusion and ambiguity. These articles focus on the building, not the institution. They are generally about places that no longer function as schools, and schoolhouse is the accepted term for the buildings involved. It implies they are small buildings, very different from most modern public schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that schoolhouses are not always actual schools, and the articles I look at on the list, are just about the historical buildings. Dream Focus 12:20, 9 February 2012 (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:Hotels disestablished in 1913[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Hotels disestablished in 1913 to Category:1913 disestablishments
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if we really need a special category for a single article. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • question What does "disestablishment" mean? A lot of the hotel buildings have been re-purposed to other uses and therefore are no longer hotels. Should they be listed? Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this could lead to a proposal for separate Hotel and Hotel Building cats to match the dispute above about churches. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smallcat. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - For a single entry it seems pointless. In reply to Mangoe, "disestablishment" in this sense means simply that the hotel ceased business in that year. Therefore, it wouldn't be appropriate to add hotel buildings to similar categories unless the article itself primarily focuses on the defunct business. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion makes sense if one focuses on this category in isolation, but it turns out to be part of a well-developed hierarchy of Category:Hotels, where it is part of Category:Hotels by year of disestablishment and where other related categories include Category:Defunct hotels and Category:Hotels by year of establishment. If there is concern about this category, discussion should consider the whole structure of Category:Hotels. --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge- I'd Rather prefer a delete but merge is fine JayJayTalk to me 02:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2012 (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:Underpopulated Biography categories[edit]

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 & rename to Category:Underpopulated biography categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Underpopulated Biography categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Sorry if I'm just uninformed, but I'm not clear why would have such a content category when Template:Popcat and subcategories such as {{popcat|Underpopulated books categories}} add it to an administrative category space. Is this just a way to call attention to it because of the massive backlog? Even for an experienced user such as myself, it's strange to see it in the content category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2012 (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:Nike missile command posts[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nike missile command posts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. After removing one entry that was not a post from this TfT creation we are left with one article, which as I recall, is in several other categories that are likely to be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2012 (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:Limbless people[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Limbless people to Category:People with tetra-amelia syndrome
Nominator's rationale: This category is for individuals with tetra-amelia syndrome, a genetic disorder, and not quadruple amputees (no opinion on whether that characteristic should be categorized). Fusanosuke Gotō is the only member of the category who would need to be removed after the category is renamed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. --Mirokado (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ambiguity with amputees. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to remove ambiguity.--Lenticel (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- No objection in principle, but we would need a category for quadruple amputees, of whom Fusanosuke Gotō, currently in this category, is one. The present war in Afghanistan is producing a number of quadruple amputees, and it is possible that a few may become notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Categorizing amputees by type or by number of amputations is a difficult proposition, in part because there are many types of amputations (i.e., many body parts which can be amputated) and most are either not defining or otherwise not suitable for categorization. Category:Quadruple amputees perhaps could, due to the relative rarity of quadruple amputation, be a viable subcategory of Category:Amputees, but I'd be opposed to an entire category tree of 'Amputees by type' or 'Amputees by number of amputations'. Of course, with rarity comes another problem, namely that I've found only three people who could be categorized: Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, Philippe Croizon and Fusanosuke Gotō. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (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:Cumberland Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cumberland Township, Adams County, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another TfT creation. Of the three entries two do not mention the township. The other has adequate categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2012 (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:Healy-Rae family[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Healy-Rae family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category has only 2 members and little prospect of expansion.
The Irish Healy-Rae family is a noted political dynasty in County Kerry. Jackie Healy-Rae was a Teachta Dála (TD) from 1997 to 2011, and when he stood down the seat was won by his son Michael Healy-Rae. Both are former members of Kerry County Council, as is Michael's other son Danny.
Per WP:POLITICIAN, local councillors carry no presumption of notability, and we currently have no article on Danny. Although the family operates as a very effective political machine, and it might be possible to write a decent article on Danny, that would still leave us with only 3 articles which could easily be interlinked. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (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/2012_February_3&oldid=1127487276"