Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12

Category:Christian popular culture

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Christian popular culture to Category:Christian culture

Nominator's rationale:

1. In the child categories of this category there is also a lot of content (in Christian Art and part of Christian Performing Arts) that is not seen as 'popular', so the adjective 'popular' is not applicable to much of the content of the category.
2. Proposal is consistent with other religions that only have 'culture' without the adjective 'popular'

Note, if the proposal is granted, the introduction text of the category page also has to be removed or adjusted.

Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support The definition given at Christian pop culture is so vague as to be useless for purposes of definition here. Most of the contents simply refer to culture in general. It makes more sense to move "Bible in popular culture" to Category:Christianity in popular culture which does a much better job of this intersection. SFB 14:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support vague category, but we seem to have parallels for other cultures. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support but purge anything that is specifically "popular calutre" into Category:Christianity in popular culture, which is very similar to this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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:Religion in the Ancient Roman period

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) 02:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Religion in the Ancient Roman period to Category:Religion in ancient history

Nominator's rationale: Merge:

1. The current title is confusing because one might well think that the category is restricted to religions in the regions ruled by the Ancient Romans. Actually the contents of the category is about religion around the globe (though restricted to the period as the Roman republic and empire happened to exist).
2. The period of the Ancient Romans belongs to ancient history.

Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• ≠≠≠≠ I agree that the title is confusing and recommend that the category have an explanatory boilerplate defining its scope, both temporal and spatial. I disagree with the second point; while Ancient Rome is within ancient history, the two are not identical. The Sumerian religion, for example, predates Roman religion by many centuries. The Category:Religion in ancient history is a container for all ancient religions, not just the Roman. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Merge but create any necessary religion in ancient Rome type categories as needed. Religion in some state's period is problematic in that it is not limited to religion in that state. "Religion in the European Union period" (1993-now) would include such stuff as Heaven's Gate (1997) which had nothing to do with the EU. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Merge -- This category seems to have arisen from the insidious wish of certain editors to classify everyting by millennium, century and decade. That may be appropriate in relatively recent times, but I wish people would not do it for more remote periods, where there is just not enough content for this to be useful. The first century BC category has a Hindu item in it (via a subcat). Rome never ruled moire than a small fraction of the world. It is therefore not appropriate to use this to classify things elsewhere. There is already a general category, Category:Ancient Roman religion, which (I am glad to say) is not split by centuries. Where appropriate articles should be moved there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Merge Changing my vote per Peterkingiron's rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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:French words and phrases

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 to delete / withdrawn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:French words and phrases

Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are not about words - the articles are about the things the words refer to. This is the same as the discussion on April 11 about Tamil words and phrases (meanwhile deleted). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (unlike the Tamil category) this category has some articles that belong in it (e.g. Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?) and it has subcategories. It should however be purged of articles like Coup d'état. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete a new purged category could be created to replace it populated solely by articles explaining the word origins of such phrase - perhaps each article entitled Voulez-vous coucher avec moi? (phrase), Détente (word) or the like. A mere paragraph in an article about the real topic that shows that a word comes from the French (directly, like "president", or indirectly like "Pork") does not merit inclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with your 2nd sentence, but there are a few problems with the 1st sentence. It would make policing these categories much easier if an article about a word/phrase had to have a title that included "(phrase)", "(word)" or similar. It would also help to clarify articles that risk becoming a blend of about a word/phrase and about a concept. However, if you look at, for example, Category:English_phrases you see very few titles in that format and I think if you tried renaming many of them you may face objections from those editors who vehemently oppose unnecessary disambiguation. Also, how would you go about "replacing" the category - other than by purging the existing category ? DexDor (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This category has become too over-run with articles that do not belong for it to be worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a category hierarchy, with valid sub-cats. By all means selectively purge it in accordance with the criteria stated on the page, and notify editors who have been overpopulating it. – Fayenatic London 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question, since purging sounds (just practically speaking) like a mission impossible, would it be allowed to agree on the following:(?)

1. collect article names of articles that we believe truly belong to this category
2. delete the category
3. re-establish the category (with blank content)
4. manually tag the articles of step 1
5. closely follow the category for some time and prevent it from getting polluted again

Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleting and re-creating a category has been done (here), but in that case it was _much_ easier to identify the articles that should remain in the category so I don't support it here. I've removed many articles (e.g. Village[[1]]) from this category so many of those that remain either are about a word/phrase or are unclear. I don't think there's any alternative to looking at each article individually and deciding whether it is about a word/phrase (and if so whether it should be replaced by a redirect to Wiktionary) or not. As for following the category - AFAIK there's no way to watchlist membership of a category so it's a matter of looking at the category from time to time and watchlisting articles that might get placed here. DexDor (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies by proposer it seems like I completely forgot to upload the CfD template onto the category page. That means this proposal isn't valid, right? Sort of fortunately, there was no consensus about the proposal anyway.

Proposal withdrawn Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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:Old Ngonians

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Old Ngonians to Category:People educated at Namilyango College

Nominator's rationale: Per multiple previous CfDs. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong rename per previous CfDs, and WP:JARGON unknown to the world at large. also Old Ngonian/Ngonian redlinks, so C2D Namilyango College -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Rename per precedent. This one presumably got missed when we dealt with all the English Public Schools, to some extent with opposition from me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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:Metal fusion bands

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Metal fusion bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is about a non-notable genre that doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Λeternus ^(talk) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.