Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4

Category:White Russians

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:White Russians (movement), without creating a precedent for the sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. White Russian has several meanings, one of which is people from Belarus. (That meaning was common in the days of the Russian Empire.) This category is for people who were supporters or members of the White movement. They are most commonly referred to as "White Russians", but I think we need some sort of disambiguator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (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:Satellite Award winners

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I should have included this parent category in the bundle nomination of the winners in the individual award categories a month ago. The award itself has notibility issues (at least based on the issue tag on Satellite Award) and winning it is not a defining aspect of one's career. WP:OC#Award. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:55, 4 February 2013 (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.

Congregational churches categories

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 all (i.e. do not rename or delete). There is a clear local consensus here not to rename these categories as proposed.
The question of whether we should have categories for "churches" or "church buildings" has been discussed at CFD many times over the last few years. The debates have usually been lengthy (and sometimes heated), and their outcomes have been inconsistent. Isn't it time for a WP:RFC to seek wider input on this question, and try to build a stable consensus rather than re-hashing the same debate again and again at CFD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are mostly categories of NHRP (US) or Listed (UK) buildings, not congregations. As a rule, churches are not otherwise found worthy of articles. There is no system within these two projects for categorizing church buildings by denomination, but it would be obviously useful to do so. Therefore I am proposing to repurpose these categories to such a scheme, deleting the extraneous categories in the process. This is a trial run for doing this to other denominations. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have argued in the past that the vast majority of articles in these trees are about the buildings and not the congregations. I would rather think of this as a split since the proposal is simply using the bot to do the bulk move and then following up with a manual population/creation of a congregation tree as needed. I do oppose the deletion of Category:Congregational church buildings since it may be the logical top level category in this area. If there is a better choice please clue us in. It is correct for an article to be in both a building and congregation category when both are well covered in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd hope that any closing admin would read your comments to the end, there is a danger that you would be seen to be supportive of the deletion, which you're clearly not. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified proposal for retention of topmost category. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian, your statement supportive of splitting seems to indicate that your !vote is Oppose the deletion of the categories, not to Support deletion of them. --doncram 11:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the renames for the reasons stated which I agree are valid for the vast majority of the affected articles. For the cases where you have a limited number of articles that should be in two trees then the articles can be in both. It appears that most of the oppose votes are of the mind set that the buildings are not notable enough to be categorized as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although churches are notable if they are listed, they are not automatically regarded as non-notable if they are not listed. I'm worried that the proposer does not understand the difference between a church congregation and Congregational Churches, which applies to the congregations. It may be an idea to create listed building categories - but this is probably best done manually and on a case by case basis. JASpencer (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the difference, and I would invite examination of the articles in verification of the fact that they are almost all (and in the case of the American categories, exclusively) about church buildings. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nominator has also nominated List of Congregational churches for deletion (which should obviously be Kept). See wp:CLT for explanation how lists, categories, and navigation templates are complementary. Articles about churches are typically about either or both the church as a congregation and history that pre-dates and spans use of individual buildoings, and the church as a building. Not all U.S. churches that are notable in Wikipedia are NRHP-listed. The NRHP-listed ones are just some that are easily documented as notable so they are more fully represented (are relatively over-represented) in Wikipedia. Renaming to narrow the categories is hurtful. Let the Wikipedia grow to include other non-NRHP-listed ones; be patient, let the categories grow. No benefit to rename or to split. Why pick on Congregational religion, by the way? --doncram 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I picked the Congregationalists simply because they were the first case I looked at. And while there is some theoretical possibility of notable congregations in unimportant buildings, I note that every Vermont article is about an NRHP listing, and it's a very safe bet that every other article in the US tree is of the same ilk. Besides, the utility of dividing the NRHP listings by denominational family (or religion) is obvious: the "religious function" categories are huge. If we did this as a split off instead of as a rename, most "denomination church" categories would disappear for lack of members. Mangoe (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not theoretical, there are notable churches of every denomination that have modern buildings, notable for their activity/size/congregations or notable for the modern (non-NRHP-eligible) architecture of their buildings. Also there were historically notable Congregational churches in Vermont, I am sure, and in other states, where there is no surviving building (and perhaps no surviving church), for which articles will eventually be created. The NRHP articles are simply among the easiest articles to start; there will be others. So what if the current population of the Vermont articles are all NRHP-listed churches; that doesn't indicate that the category should be deleted or that it should be split. --doncram 11:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IF they are created, then such a categorization could be justified. Until those articles exist, the possibility remains only a possibility. My experience with various discussions here is that parish articles do not generally survive deletion discussions; only building articles do, because architectural notability has clear, bright lines. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale: The denominational term "Congregational" lacks clear meaning (as I indicated in my comments at the AFD for List of Congregational churches), because of mergers and splits. Accordingly, churches in this category should be slotted in a denominational category that identifies a more specific denominational affiliation. The correct denominational categorization for many of the U.S. churches formerly considered Congregational is Category:United Church of Christ churches. I propose the new Category:Congregational Christian churches for churches (such as two churches in Iowa) that belong to the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches. Additionally, though, because there are architectural similarities in many of the historic buildings identified as "Congregational", Category:Congregational church buildings has merit as a separate building-focused category. Most of the articles in this category are focused on the church buildings, so almost all could be slotted in that category (or subcats); many also could go into a churches-by-denomination category, if the actual denomination can be determined. For the U.S. church buildings, I oppose the use of "National Register of Historic Places" in the category name, largely because I've worked on some articles for notable Congregational church buildings that aren't listed (or aren't individually listed) on the National Register (for example, First Congregational Church of Litchfield and Old Lyme Congregational Church). I haven't looked carefully enough at the UK category to form a strong opinion, but for consistency with the U.S. category structure I favor, I'd recommend renaming it to Category:Congregational church buildings in the United Kingdom. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it happens, almost all of the articles in these categories are exclusively about the buildings. Most of them are stubs that indicate little more than the fact that the named church is listed on the National Register. The three-article Iowa category is an exception to that generalization. Those two Connecticut church articles (i.e., Litchfield and Old Lyme) that I linked in my comment haven't ever been included in this category, but they are properly included in Category:United Church of Christ churches in Connecticut because they are UCC congregations. --Orlady (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Church articles are invariably about the congregations that are housed, or were housed, in the building. Some of the articles are stubs waiting for their fuller stories to be told. It is rather easy to get the basic information about a church building listed on the NRHP in the US (name, date built, architectural style, architect and/or builder), so many editors begin and end their articles at that point. In Iowa, for example, these articles can tell the larger story about Euro-American immigration into the Midwest. Congregational churches tell the story, for the most part, about New Englanders just as the Catholic churches tell the stories of the Irish and Germans, the Lutherans about Germans and Scandinavians, Episcopalians and Methodist about people from the eastern and southern US. These are generalizations and I'm not limiting these immigrant groups to these denominations. Davenport, Iowa had a German Congregational church and a German Methodist church, so the congregation tells the story about the building. Also, because the Congregational Church is still in existence it is a living reality and not an historical curiosity. The choice of architectural style for the building also says something about the congregation and the era that it was built. There are, of course, church buildings where the denomination that built the building no longer occupies it. This may be a bigger problem for naming the article rather than how to categorize it. The Sioux City, Iowa church building is no longer a Congregational church and should not be in the category. The Burlington and Nashua church buildings are still Congregational churches and they belong in the category as it currently exists. Other Congregational church buildings in Iowa, such as First Congregational in Iowa City, are now UCC congregations and they are listed in that category for Iowa. The ancient Christian Church referred to its buildings, which we call churches, as the domus ecclesia, the house of the church. The church is the people, the building houses the church. Without the church, the people, the building is just a building (architecturally significant as it may be). It is the people that give the buildings their reason for existing, and they should not be divorced from that reality. Farragutful (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ideally, what you say would be true. However, the reality is that most of the articles in the U.S. categories discussed here are short stubs about buildings (e.g., First Congregational Church and Meetinghouse), with no information about the churches that occupied those buildings. Category:Congregational churches in Iowa is an exception in that the articles are fairly substantial; almost all of the other articles in these categories are still minimal stubs that are solely about buildings. This is why I propose renaming the Iowa category as a category for Congregational Christian churches in Iowa. Many other "Congregational" churches that are now affiliated with the United Church of Christ are now found in categories like Category:United Church of Christ churches in Connecticut and Category:United Church of Christ churches in Iowa; my proposal would give similar treatment to Congregational Christian churches, while retaining a separate category for "Congregational" church buildings (including those of churches whose actual denominational affiliation is not yet determined). --Orlady (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely certain of the protocol here, however, I'll write this here and whatever comes of it, so be it. I fully agree that the Iowa category should be changed to "Congregational Christian churches in Iowa." It is more accurate than the current title and therefore makes complete sense. I also thinks this makes sense for any other states as well. Those articles can be developed to add the additional information about the congregations. Farragutful (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An article about a church building that doesn't discuss the congregation is woefully short of useful information; we should expect articles to cover both and thus put these articles into categories that are menat for both. This problem should be blamed on those who create useless substubs, not on the current collection of categories. The nominator's first sentence is a good reason not to get rid of current categories — because "These are mostly categories of NHRP (US) or Listed (UK) buildings, not congregations", where will you put the exceptions? Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orlady asks me for clarification; sorry for being unclear. Basically, I'm saying "What we have right now is better than anything else that's been proposed, so let's leave everything where it is right now". Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, the fact is that most of these articles don't talk much about the congregation because most of the information about these buildings comes from NHRP nominations, which tend to only care about what it took to get the building constructed. If one is lucky there may be some data on a parish website with a list of rectors/pastors or the like, but by and large there's precious little to work with. There's little notable in the history of most congregations; the exceptions tend to be places like Washington National Cathedral whose NHRP listing is incidental to the history of the place; but these are very few and far between. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That "no consensus" closure was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for deleting the lists are not strongly related to the reasons for renaming these categories, even though they address the same kinds of articles. These categories remain, for the most part, about buildings, and doncram, given that that the lists you assembled are focused on buildings (since they relate to NHRP listings) I could for the sake of wasting more time on it renominate the lists for renaming to lists of buildings, to which all the same complaints I made the first time around would still apply. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there were already a couple of other churches in these categories that aren't listed on the National Register. Additionally, there are several existing articles about current or former Congregational churches that aren't on the National Register and aren't on Doncram's list or in his categories. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • update 3 on Iowa. The original specific proposal about renaming the Iowa Congregational churches in Iowa category also does not work, because there is at least one non-NRHP-listed one among the 8 notable Iowa Congregational churches now covered in the corresponding List of Congregational churches and included in the category. I just added Iowa churches to the List and/or to the category so there are 8 now, rather than just 3 showing in the category before. And a subsequent specific proposal above to narrow the Iowa category also does not work, i think: i think the proposal was to revise the Iowa category to make it specifically about only UCC churches in Iowa, but there is a one that is specifically NOT a UCC church, that voted NOT to join the UCC, and which is NRHP-listed and wikipedia-notable. --doncram 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some confusion here. At the time that this discussion started and also when I suggested renaming the Iowa category to Category:Congregational Christian churches in Iowa, the category did not contain ANY United Church of Christ (UCC) churches. It contained three churches; two are affiliated with the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, and the third is a church building that is now used by a Pentecostal congregation. There was, appropriately, a distinct and separate category for UCC churches in Iowa. Now Doncram has inserted all of the UCC churches into the Congregational churches category (in addition to the UCC category). Notwithstanding the fact that he has not put another Iowa Congregational church building into this category (presumably because the name of the church doesn't include the word "Congregational"), Doncram's categorization decision underlines my perception that the categories he has built -- and that are under discussion here -- are categories for church buildings that were built as Congregational churches. Accordingly, the best name for these categories is "Congregational church buildings". Once the categories are renamed, additional categorization may be needed to correctly classify the various churches by denomination. --Orlady (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. If you know about a church that should be in the Congregational churches in Iowa category, put it there. If you are intending to be funny or sarcastic or critical or whatever, I don't get it. Update: I just added, as you should have, the First Congregational Church (Davenport, Iowa) a.k.a. First Bible Missionary Church one, into the Iowa Congregational churches category. I don't enjoy any of this interaction, and wish that someone would close this whole proposal as obviously invalid. --doncram 02:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • note on UK and the general list To be clear, not all the United Kingdom congregational churches are Listed buildings (e.g. not the Finsbury Chapel), and not all the United States ones are NRHP-listed (e.g., not The Little Brown Church. So the original proposals don't work.

I am sure several participants here are well-meaning in trying to make category names be descriptive. But the proposals to narrow categories so that their titles are more fully descriptive of the current contents of the category but allowing for no other types, seems to me not helpful. Too-narrow categories are not robust to the addition of new articles (or the finding of already-existing Wikipedia articles) that fit the broader category but not the too-narrow one. And, I further think there's no need to split a pretty small category such as Iowa congregational churches into smaller categories of NRHP ones vs. non-NRHP ones, and UCC vs. non-UCC ones, when there are only 8 churches in the Iowa category. --doncram 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American actors of Chinese descent

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: administrative close. The ongoing discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2013 (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:Northern Ireland stage actors

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 all. The question of the stage actor categories needs to be discussed in a discussion about ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Stage actors, not about the category here in the original nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename per convention of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People from Northern Ireland by occupation. This would fit speedy criterion C2C, except that a perverse decision at CFD 2009 October 9 ignored the convention set in 2009 January 7 and CfD 2009 July 13 upheld at every other CFD since then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American female pornographic film actors)

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, could have probably been a speedy under CSD R3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 4 February 2013 (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:Danish Christian ministers

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: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the rest of the hierarchy. Category only has two members (one of which I've just added). PamD 09:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Thanks for pointing this out. Because Category:Danish Christian ministers is currently a subcategory of Category:Christian clergy by nationality I had not realised there was this distinction. I now see it is also a subcat of Category:Christian ministers by nationality.
  • Withdraw nomination per the above - I'll create the new required category, and remove the existing one from its wrong place in the hierarchy. Thanks. PamD 08:09, 5 February 2013 (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:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco, California

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - I started Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco, California without realizing the category was at the "county" designation, but most people call it "San Francisco" anyway and the new cat name can be used to categorize all Bay Area request photos - Also it matches Category:Wikipedians in San Francisco, California - WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2013 (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:Anna Akhmatova Museums

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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALLCAT, only one page in the category. Doesn't need to be merged to the other parent categories, as article is already in them. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:17, 4 February 2013 (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:1990s television series

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: procedural close. This is not a proposal to delete/rename/split/merge the category, so it doesn't belong at CFD. The nominator may want to take up the suggestion of asking the question at Wikipedia talk:Categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 9 February 2013 (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/2013_February_4&oldid=1127488305"