Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 22

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) 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Galveston Hurricane of 1900 to Category:1900 Galveston hurricane

Nominator's rationale: per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at the moment. Perhaps the article title needs to be changed. Most sources I have read (and there are many) refer to it as the the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 with a minority using "1900 Storm" I'm not sure I have read "1900 Galveston hurrican"e used in many sources, however perhaps it would be best to see if there is a naming pattern already established here on Wiki. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 01:05, 23 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Active United Kingdom military aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Active Russian military aircraft was deleted in January a number of active military aircraft cats still exist. Present or active cats are not really encyclopedic and on an aircraft article like the Lockheed C-130 Hercules if all active military cats by country are created it could have more than fifty. All users are already mentioned in each aircraft article and list of active aircraft exist for some countries so I dont think these cats add any value. Other categories to be considered for deletion: Category:Active United States military aircraft & Category:Active Canadian military aircraft MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. As you say a list under the air force would be the appropriate way of noting this. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these act as subcategories for the full military aircraft categories and similar, which are large categories. Active categories are not needed if the main country aircraft category is small. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems like these should be lists instead of categories. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transform into Lists, but the US military aircraft are well covered by lists. Alternatively ditch the Active.Petebutt (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The parent is “Modern” not “Active” ie Category:Modern military equipment, which however is not a subcategory of an era of warfare (but should be). The Category:Warfare of the Modern era is under consideration (June 12 ) for renaming (Warfare post 1945?) and could be a parent for subcategories like these and other categories if renamed. See also Category:Modern Russian tanks (June 20). Hugo999 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category does not fit in a workable schema and makes a distinction that is not part of general policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taxonomic authority disambiguation pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Any page that could theoretically be placed in this category would be an incomplete disambiguation of a relatively common surname, which would require a disambiguation page of its own (in practice, all of the pages currently listed here are in exactly that situation). Since all pages in this category inherently violate WP:INCOMPDAB and must be merged into existing disambiguation pages or lists, this category should never have any pages created to fill it. The existing pages can be merged into a list or series of lists of taxonomic authorities. bd2412 T 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. jorgenev 10:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We also need someone to work on fixing these pages that are a violation of policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do that, pending the outcome of this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:44, 29 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sunday league and 5-a-side football clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only a single article, and is unlikely to have any more given that Sunday league and 5-a-side teams are pretty much inherently non-notable by definition (the one article currently in the category is an exception because the team has received unusual levels of coverage due to an extraordinarily high number of star players who played there as youngsters). ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The lack of articles makes the category redundant. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pointless category, as the nom says the only entry is more famous for producing talented youngsters that it is as a Sunday league team. GiantSnowman 19:23, 29 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Church to Category:Catholic Church

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If this passes, any relevant subcat.s can be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Catholic Church (disambiguation) is ambiguous. Occuli (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are several 'Catholic Churches' and no one of them can claim the Catholic Church name as its very own. Article should be renamed, not this category Hmains (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 2010 discussion was closed as "keep". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ambiguous. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it is what it is called. WP articles do not determine the naming and reality of subjects in the real world. And what in heaven's name is the nominator talking about when he gives himself a free-pass in advance for mass changes (work done by dozens of editors over a decade) by stating "If this passes, any relevant subcat.s can be speedy renamed."? He needs to take that back. Cross every bridge only when you get to it. IZAK (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a parent category is renamed by consensus, it's fairly standard to speedily rename any subcategories to match based on speedy criterion C2C. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's how the speedy rename process works--the entire point is that you don't have to nominate every category for a full CfD. Are you opposed to the process of speedy renaming? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename It shouldn't be necessary to relitigate the article move here. Kauffner (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we've been here before and the arguments aren't any different than they were last time. See the discussion linked to above. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per earlier discussion Hugo999 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is really a stealth attempt to overcome the failure to rename various lower level Catholic Church related categories. By only including the parent category the likelyhood of people noticing this is lowered. This renaming proposal needs to be put on every cat page that includes "Roman Catholic Church" in its name. If the renaming is done without doing that it is a stealth proposal attempting to change policy without making people properly aware of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the template has also been placed on at least one sub-category Category:Roman Catholic schools in Australia -- Paul foord (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few placing of the template on sub-categories. However the template needs to be placed on all of the sub-categories of this category, and that is a lot more than I did. I think I managed to get through Belgian schools but there is a lot further to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reform synagogues to Category:Reform temples and congregations

Nominator's rationale: They are all called Temples in the US, (although synagogues in UK.) Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The standard English word for a Jewish house of worship is synagogue, not "temple". All related cats (e.g. Category:Conservative synagogues, Category:Reconstructionist synagogues), the parent categories, and indeed, all other synagogue categories, use the term "synagogue". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Jayjg . The points made by him are especially valid with regard to this worldwide category (as generally only in North America is the word "temple" sometimes used as an alternative to "synagogue". (Please note that I today nominated for renaming here the only category (so far as I am aware) where the term "temple" has been used instead of "synagogue".) Davshul (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you go ahead now and create Category:Reform synagogues in Poland. That's nice. Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it is what they are. Reform, Conservative and Orthodox are still technically under the over-all label of "Rabbinic Judaism". True, a purist Orthodox position dislikes that Reform's are called "synagogues" on an equal footing with Orthodox synagogues (and by the way, most Orthodox synagogues don't call themselves "synagogues" either) but generically and categorically these are synagogues. Funny that Chesdovi who lobbies for perfect English nomenclature now wishes to drop a perfectly accurate English word like "synagogue". In any case, what's the point of inserting the term "Congregations" here too, it is redundant and would only confuse because essentially any gathering of Jews for purposes of prayer and Torah study is a "congregation". Oh and by the way, the WP rule is that once something is named in one type of English on WP it can stay, so let's not undermine the Brits here. IZAK (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You are all missing something. This category is is populated with over 100 pages called Temple. That should settle it. Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also churchs, but they are known as and called temples. Chesdovi (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment. Chesdovi, actually there are only 4 pages listed in this category, none of which use the word "Temple". As regards the pages populating the subcategories, apart from North America (generally discussed in the following two nominations) the word temple does not appear. However, as I stated in my comments to the nominations below, the word used as part of a name is not the single definitive deciding issue. There is a single word "synagogue" that generally covers all Jewish houses of worship, whether or not their name includes the word "Synagogue", "Temple", "Congregation", "Shul", "Kehillah" or any of the other terms adopted by the group of congregants. Furthermore, your proposed new name is not only unnecessarily long and cumbersome, it is also imprecise, since it does not indicate that the "Reform temples" relate to "Jewish" houses of worship. Davshul (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had not noticed, Category:Latter Day Saint temples is a sub-cat of Category:Church buildings. The parent cat can include all these other sub-cats which are called by different names. This cat will still remain a sub-cat of Synagogues! Chesdovi (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are distinct and different than Churches of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are 134 temples, put over 10,000 churches owned by the Church. Weekly Church meetings are not held in temples, in fact the temples are closed on Sunday. Temples are where ordiances for both the living and the dead that can only be held there are performed. They are distinct and different from Church buildings and no Latter-day Saint who knows the smallest bit about the religion ever refers to the temple as a church. This is not equivalent to how the Reform interchangeably use synagogue and temple. It is somewhat analogous to the difference between a synagogue and The Temple of Solomon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Davshul is using the fact whether the word Temple does or does not appear, yet he has just created Category:Reform synagogues in Canada, all 3 pages are called Temple. Go figure. You can't have it both ways. Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – these temples are synagogues, eg "The Holy Blossom Temple is a Reform synagogue", and so the present name is spot on. Occuli (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact synagogues which are Temples, if you get what I mean. That's why they're called Temples, not synagogues. Skyscrappers may be tall buildings, but they are categorised as Skyscrappers, not Buildings.... Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rename as we're using synagogue as a generic term for any Jewish house of worship across all denominations. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose'. Chesdovi does not understand what is going on here. Category:Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provodes 0 (yes Zero) precedents. Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are buildings that are distinct in name and function from churches. In the case of Reform synagogues the ones that use the name "temple" in their title are not distinct in name or function from synagogues. A study of the articles on the various institutions that do not use synagogue in their name will reveal that the buildings they meat in are virtually always refered to at least once as synagogues. Synagogue is the accepted basic descriptor for a Jewish place of worship in English usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reform synagogues in New York City to Category:Reform temples and congregations in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Majority are known as temples, not synagogues. Chesdovi (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The standard English word for a Jewish house of worship is synagogue, not "temple". All related cats (e.g. Category:Conservative synagogues in New York City, Category:Orthodox synagogues in New York City), and indeed, all other synagogue categories, use the term "synagogue". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Jayjg . Davshul (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my additional comments below. Davshul (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is what they are. Reform, Conservative and Orthodox are still technically under the over-all label of "Rabbinic Judaism". True, a purist Orthodox position dislikes that Reform's are called "synagogues" on an equal footing with Orthodox synagogues (and by the way, most Orthodox synagogues don't call themselves "synagogues" either) but generically and categorically these are synagogues. Funny that Chesdovi who lobbies for perfect English nomenclature now wishes to drop a perfectly accurate English word like "synagogue". In any case, what's the point of inserting the term "Congregations" here too, it is redundant and would only confuse because essentially any gathering of Jews for purposes of prayer and Torah study is a "congregation". IZAK (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who care's what the Orthodox position is! The Reform movement call their synagogues Temples, and so should we. Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You are all missing something. This category is is populated with over 100 pages called Temple. That should settle it. Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also churchs, but they are known as and called temples. Chesdovi (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment. Chesdovi, actually there are only 9 pages listed in this category, of which only 3 use the word "Temple" as part of their name, 3 use the term "Congregation" and 3 use "Synagogue". However, as I stated in my comment to the nomination following this one, I believe it is you who is missing the point. The word used as part of a name is not the single definitive deciding issue. The word "synagogue" covers all Jewish houses of worship, whether or not their name includes "Synagogue", Temple", "Congregation", "Shul", "Kehillah" or any of the other terms adopted by the group of congregants. Furthermore, your proposed new name is not only unnecessarily long and cumbersome, it is also imprecise, since it does not indicate that the "Reform temples" relate to "Jewish" houses of worship. A number of other religions use the word temple, but no others use the word "synagogue". Davshul (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chesdovi, LDS Church temples are not called "churches" by adherents, they are called "temples". Latter Day Saints call the buildings they worship in on Sundays "churches", "chapels", or "meetinghouses", but they always refer to their temples as "temples" or "the house of the Lord". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – these temples are synagogues, eg "The Riverdale Temple is a Reform synagogue", and so the present name is spot on. There may well be a case for removing the congregations. Occuli (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really Occuli? I did not see once the word Synagogue on their website. The question now is will you change your vote? Chesdovi (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Rename We're using the term synagogueas a generic term for congregations across denominations. The title chosen only adds confusion and three of the nine entries in this category (Central Synagogue, Free Synagogue of Flushing and Stephen Wise Free Synagogue) use the word in their title. Alansohn (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As I said before Chesdovi does not have a precedent. He clearly knows nothing about what the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are. They are buildings that are distinct in form, function and use from churches and no Latter-day Saint who knows anything about the religion would ever call them a church. In fact, this is a precedent that means that his attempt to remove the term synagogue from these category names clearly fails. It is even more a failure in the case of the New York City synagogues because some of these institutions have articles with the word synagogue in the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reform synagogues in the United States to Category:Reform temples and congregations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Per common name. Chesdovi (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Common name? There's nothing like the proposed name anywhere within Category:Synagogues by movement, as far as I know. - Eureka Lott 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 out of 127 are called synagogues! Chesdovi (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's what they are. Temple and congregation are ambiguous. Synagogue is not. The proposed name would make the category's purpose less clear. - Eureka Lott 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are Jewish places of worship called Temples, so let's categories them as such. Chesdovi (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The standard English word for a Jewish house of worship is synagogue, not "temple". All related cats (e.g. Category:Reconstructionist synagogues in the United States, Category:Conservative synagogues in the United States, Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, Category:Unaffiliated synagogues in the United States, Category:Humanistic synagogues in the United States), and indeed, all other synagogue categories, use the term "synagogue". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jayjg. The reasons he presents seem valid. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 01:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Jayjg . Davshul (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my further comments below.Davshul (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it is what they are. Reform, Conservative and Orthodox are still technically under the over-all label of "Rabbinic Judaism". True, a purist Orthodox position dislikes that Reform's are called "synagogues" on an equal footing with Orthodox synagogues (and by the way, most Orthodox synagogues don't call themselves "synagogues" either) but generically and categorically these are synagogues. Funny that Chesdovi who lobbies for perfect English nomenclature now wishes to drop a perfectly accurate English word like "synagogue". In any case, what's the point of inserting the term "Congregations" here too, it is redundant and would only confuse because essentially any gathering of Jews for purposes of prayer and Torah study is a "congregation". IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You are all missing something. This category is is populated with over 100 pages called Temple. That should settle it. Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also churchs, but they are known as and called temples. Chesdovi (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment. Chesdovi, actually this category is populated with 127 pages, of which only 70 pages use the word "Temple" as part of their name and over 40 use the term "Congregation", which perhaps is the reason you have included the word congregation as part of your proposed new category name. However, with the greatest of respect, I believe it is you who is missing the point. The word used as part of the a name is not the single definitive deciding issue. There is a single word "synagogue" that generally covers all Jewish houses of worship, whether or not their name includes the word "Synagogue", "Temple", "Congregation", "Shul", "Kehillah" or any of the other terms adopted by the group of congregants. In fact, only 12 of the the 43 synagogues listed in Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States have the word "Synagogue" as part of their name. Similarly, of the 65 synagogues listed in Category:Conservative synagogues in the United States, only 16 use the word "Synagogue". Davshul (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Davshul: You are not following Chesdovi's failed logic. He is citing the number of temples in Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the number of temples in the argument at hand. Of course this gets to the problem at hand. The temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are distinct buildings used for purposes distinct from the churches/meetinghouses/chapels of the Church. In the later is where weekly church meetings are held. In the former is where Baptisms for the dead, sealings and other sacred ordinances are held. The Churches/chapels/meetinghouses are open to all, entrance into the temples is restricted to members who hold temple recomends. The temples are closed on Sunday. There are 134 temples and well in excess of 5,000 chapels. Temples are built according to much higher building standards, they are always owned by the church and so forth. Many branches (which are smaller congregations than wards) of the church meet in rented buildings. On the other hand in the case of Jewish synagogues a study of the articles will reveal that synagogue is the accepted general descriptor. It seems in some cases that there is a distinction between Congragation X which is the religious group and the synagogue, which is the building in which it meets. However there is no clear evidence that there is anything distinct between a temple and a synagogue, and my general guess is that reform Jews are more likely today to speak of the place as a synagogue then they were 100 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many Reform congregations are actually called Temple, see for example Congregation Ohabai Sholom (Nashville, Tennessee). "Congregation", "Kehillah" and "synagogue" all mean the same thing. Temple is a different word completely with a different meaning. The reform have widely rejected the use of the term synagogue when referring to their houses of worship. The parent cat can be Synagogues, but the cat itself must change to be consistent with the majority of pages in the cat. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per opposers. Occuli (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename synangogue is the generic term we're using across denominations for any Jewish House of worship. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2011 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Australian Hall of Champions inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless things have changed in the last year or so, there aren't WP categories for subnational level sports halls of fame. Mayumashu (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not? WA is a very big and isolated place with a very strong sporting culture so I don't see an issue with it.The-Pope (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is esentially an award category, and classifying people by an award recieved is a violation of the rules about overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nord to Category:Nord (French department)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nord requires disambiguation and there is also a department called Nord in Haiti; matches article naming Nord (French department) . Mayumashu (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename confusingCurb Chain (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename no-brainer. Pichpich (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (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.

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) 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mormons currently serving in the United States Senate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mormons currently serving in the United States House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are a few problems here that have been combined to create some very specific and unusual categories: (1) We do not categorize members of these bodies by religion; (2) we do not categorize members of these bodies by current or former status; (3) when we do categorize by religion, we tend to categorize people as the more general Latter Day Saints, rather than the more specific "Mormons". Individually, (1) and (2) are enough of a reason to delete these categories, and so the rationale is even stronger when combining the issues. (3) is more of a minor side point. If being Mormon and a current legislator in the United States is deemed to be somehow relevant, then perhaps a list would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Because: (1) There already exists a category for Jewish Americans in the United States Congress with the subcategories: Jewish members of the United States House of Representatives and Jewish United States Senators. (2) Furthermore, if it is ok to categorize the congress by "race", then why not religion? i.e. there is currently a category for "African American members of the United States House of Representatives".  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is Wikipedia, the community of editors who edit it, "the project", "us". "We" do things based on consensus, and when I stated what we do and what we not do, I meant what our previous consensus has determined for the project. To answer your second question, the best answer is that because consensus has decided that we should approach it this way; or, at the very least, that there has been consensus not to categorize American politicians by religion but no consensus on whether to delete categories which categorize American politicians by ethnicity or race. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Seems to me pov pushing.Curb Chain (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And what/whose "POV" would that be exactly?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To me this is the textbook definition of an area where a categorization could be helpful (unlike many of the archaic and obscure ones that nobody is actually interested in, i.e. "people killed in Iowa in 1976 by choking on a popsicle stick" etc). It is not meant to be pejorative, and in fact The Mormon Times published a recent article entitled: "15 Mormons serving in U.S. Congress". It is notable and one could say a positive accomplishment that the 15 Mormons in Congress constitute a greater representation than the religious group's percentage of the general U.S. population. Moreover, there are already categories on "American Mormon missionaries", "Mormon missionaries in the United States", and "20th-century Mormon missionaries" which contain many of these congressmen (as they did their obligatory two year missions in their youth). When you factor in that there are currently two notable Republican presidential nominee candidates who are Mormon = Mitt Romney & Jon Huntsman, Jr. and that the leader of the U.S. Senate Harry Reid is Mormon — despite the fact that there unfortunately exists a sizable prejudice on voting for Mormons nationwide (i.e. "A new Gallup poll showed that 22 percent of Americans would not vote for their party’s nominee if that person were Mormon, a figure largely unchanged from 1967") — this category becomes even more notable, informative and significant.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a better argument for having an article on the subject, rather than a category. bd2412 T 18:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per well-reasoned nom. Category:Members of the United States Congress by ethnic or national origin exists, but Category:Members of the United States Congress by religion does not. We don't even have the more general Category:Politicians by religion. - Eureka Lott 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They should probably be renamed to the more accurate LDS members.... but they are useful, informative, and accurate categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per nominator, specifically reasons 1 and 2. With a few special exceptions, categorization of people by current or former status routinely has been rejected, and we do not have any other instance of members of a legislative body being subcategorized by religion (AFAIK, that is). A list of (current and former) Mormon or LDS members of the United States Congress, or a list of members of the 112th U.S. Congress by religion, could be appropriate, but a category is not the proper tool to convey this information. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly listify. I would question the reasoning behind the Jewish cats too, but Jewishness is an ethno-religious complex that is unlike any other religion. Do we have Category:Muslims currently serving in the United States House of representatives?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2011 (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.

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:Wikipedians willing to assist with templates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Template assistants to Category:Wikipedians willing to assist with template changes

Nominator's rationale: To add "Wikipedians" per Wikipedia:User categories#Naming conventions and clarify the category's scope: "willing to assist with template changes" is longer than "template assistants" but also clearer. A most useful category, though, and I hope to make use of it in the future. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• support definitely needs "Wikipedians" 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Not opposed, but keep it short. "Wikipedians willing to assist with templates" should suffice, and is more inclusive then just "changes". — Edokter (talk) — 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works for me. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I am confused as to what is contained in the category as it now stands.Curb Chain (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I prefer Edokter's suggestion. - Eureka Lott 17:08, 25 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Users signed up for the Feedback Request Service to Category:Wikipedians who participate in the Feedback Request Service

Nominator's rationale: The only user categories named "User..." are the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by language; the rest all are named "Wikipedian...". Also, "who participate in" is more standard than "signed up for"; see the other subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia collaboration. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nominator's rationale makes sense. LordVetinari 07:34, 22 June 2011 (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.

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. Of the articles in the category (and not in Category:Jails in the United States), only one is for those awaiting sentencing, which is what the distinction in the US is. And even that, Toronto West Detention Centre, is in Category:Prisons in Ontario. So we can safely delete this distinction for every place except the US, and maybe our attachment to that is only pedantic.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Propose deleting Category:Jails

Nominator's rationale: The category only includes c56 jails around the world, many of which are also in a subcategory of Category:Prisons by country. All articles should be moved to the appropriate country subcategory of that category. Many seem to be in India or Pakistan. Hugo999 (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Articles already better served by Category:Prisons, having, as it does, subcategories for better specification of articles. LordVetinari 07:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Please be careful that categories are not doublled up like this. Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Jails are not prisons. There are legal definitions in the US. Those convicted of a felony are incarcerated in a prison, if you are convicted of a misdemeanor, you are incarcerated in a jail. So, at least in the US they are not the same. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While this may be US-centric, in the US there are differences in legal definitions. Other countries often had different terms (in their own languages) for the two as well. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As such differentiation is not reflected in the articles ("Jail" and "Gaol" are redirects to "Prison"), nor in the current usage of Category:Jails (see nominator's comments above), I think we should follow existing consensus and use the dictionary definition rather than the specific definitions used by certain legal systems. (Cf. the specific meaning of notability in WP as opposed to its use in Assembly of Notables) LordVetinari 03:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The U.S. issue is easily dealt with by keeping Category:Jails in the United States and having it be a subcategory of Category:Prisons in the United States, but I don't see a need for a parent category named Jails when there is no article by that name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as confusing for most of the English speaking world. Per Good Olfactory the unique US situation with semantics could be resolved by renaming/extending its Prisons in Foo category to Prisons and jails in the United States. Ephebi (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The US is most of the English speaking world. The number of native English speakers in the US outnumber those in all other countries combined. The distinction between prisons and jails is clear, although it was incompletely delineated above. Jail is also the location people are put in before conviction. Prisons only hold people who have been convicted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" ≠ "all", which is why there is a difference in usage from place to place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both of these are already more correctly listed at the shared parent Category:Penal imprisonment. Right now Category:Prisons seems to be rather cluttered. Is a jail really a subcategory of a prison? Is a concentration camp a prison? How about a detention center? I'd suggest a cleanup is more in order here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the OED definition of "jail", I would say yes—a "jail" is a type of "prison": "A place or building for the confinement of persons accused or convicted of a crime or offence; a prison." The fact that U.S. usage gives each one a more specific meaning is probably a development of convenience for the American judicial systems, but I don't think it reflects any inherent difference between the generic terms as they are usually defined. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to place these under Category:Detention centers or Category:Detention facilities since prisons and jails are just two types of detention facilities. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2011 (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.

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) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Asia Free Trade Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only a redirect of the same name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 22 June 2011 (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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-atheist Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:User categories, categories that group users by dislikes are not appropriate. Delete. - Eureka Lott 03:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm entirely in favor of deleting every category that is trivially about something that you like or dislike. If someone is an adherent to a political, religious, or philosophical doctrine, then he might have some valuable knowledge in collaborating on those topics, but if someone simply likes Dr Pepper or the color green, that is not a useful association for collaborating to write an encyclopedia. The same thing goes for an opposition to someone else's viewpoint or practices, unless that can somehow be a constructive positive association (e.g. antifa, anti-globalism, pacifism, vegetarianism, etc.) Largely speaking, though, simply not liking or even being disposed against something is in no way helpful for writing an encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories. There is extensive precedent to delete user categories, like this one, which are not-based (precedents) or group users by "dislikes of any type" or "opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea" (precedents). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this can only antagonize people. No benefit to the project. Pichpich (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2011 (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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Parks in Springfield to Category:Parks in Springfield, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Springfield is highly ambiguous. Rename. - Eureka Lott 03:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Support (if there is such an option). Obvious disambiguation. LordVetinari 11:12, 22 June 2011 (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.

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 manually and redirect. We've removed "Notable" from the acceptable words in a category name, as it is tautological on the article side. That said, the "Connected to what?" reaction to the target name is important. This should be immediately renominated after the merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Notable Wikipedians to Category:Connected contributors

Nominator's rationale: These appear to be duplicate categories. Merge. Template:Notable Wikipedian was merged into Template:Connected contributor last year. Category:Notable Wikipedians has been around for a long time, so a category redirect may be a good idea. - Eureka Lott 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Connected contributor" shows no indication of what the contributor is connected to. Both should be merged to Category:Contributors to Wikipedia 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the template is also excessively vaguely named. Connected contributors to the Obama reelection committee could easily be inferred. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The two categories are, indeed, duplicates; in fact, about half of the pages in category:Notable Wikipedians already are in category:Connected contributors too. Some manual cleanup of category:Notable Wikipedians is needed—to remove category code from those articles which transclude the template and to add the template to those categories which are missing it—but that shouldn't take too long (I'll work on it tomorrow). 65.94... raises a valid point about the name, but I think we should revisit that issue after the two categories have been combined. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:26, 22 June 2011 (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.