May 2
Category:Religious figures
- 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. — ξxplicit 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging/renaming
- (these are all the sub categories)
- Nominator's rationale: most people listed on these pages, from looking at a sampling, are priests or other religious leaders. the term 'figure' means someone notable (doesn t it) and there is Category:People associated with religion too. I don t think writers on a religion or theologians, say, could be considers (necessarily) leaders, so some links will need to be rerouted to cats for members of the specific religions (Category:Hindus etc. plus maybe Category:Religious commentators or Category:Religious writers if 'leaders' is chosen. Mayumashu (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge (to Category:Religious leaders) as too vague. Hindu gurus are very much leaders, but are not there ATM as they should be. How do we know that some or all mystics, monks, sages, saints, priests, or theologians are not also religious leaders? Merge to Category:Religious figures is fine. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose exact word of the proposal until the nominator suggests proper placement for religious figures who were not leaders. A hermit who locked himself in a cave is a figure but quite obviously not a leader. And then there's a whole gray area of ordinary priests, missionaries and well-endowed peasants who were leaders within their small communities - but placing them into "Leaders", along with prophets and apostles, devalues the whole category. NVO (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Surnames of English origin
- 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:Surnames originating in England. — ξxplicit 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Surnames of English origin to Category:Surnames of England origin
- Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from Category:English-language surnames Mayumashu (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query. What is the intended distinction between Category:Surnames of English origin and Category:English-language surnames? (and the same query for 'Dutch', and many others that appear in both trees)? The origin of names is usually obscure and in most cases the distinction between 'from English' and 'from England' is meaningless. The exception being where a surname clearly derives from a place in England. Maybe the whole structure needs looking at, but no need to pick on this one for renaming. Sussexonian (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Mayumashu's intends this cat to refer to a country, the other cat refers to a language. Not every surname from England is derived from the English language (for example all the Anglo-Norman baronial names which originated from Normandy). "English origin" can mean different things: the country, or the language. Renaming it to "Surnames originating in England" makes sure their is no confusion. Two cats, two different things.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good Ol'factory's suggestion (as nominator). Brianann MacAmhlaidh is correct - I wished to disambiguate country from language as certain names of English-language origin did not originate in England, many of anglicised/anglicized names for instance Mayumashu (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose England is a noun, and an adjective is required, which is "English". A surname will point to a person's ultimate paternal ethnicity, perhapps 700-800 years ago. These may be occupational surnames, English place-names, or be of other origins. Category:Surnames of Anglo-Norman origin might be a suitable sister or child category to include Devereus and Mortimer (for example). I am an English man, not an Englander or England man. Perhaps some of you call yourselves Americaners, not Amercans. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Archaeology in Ukraine
- 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 Category:Archaeology in Ukraine to Category:Archaeology of Ukraine. — ξxplicit 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Archaeology in Ukraine as standard term is Category:Archaeology of Ukraine (existing category). Note that both are subcategories of Category:European archaeology, and many pages are common to both. Hugo999 (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia sounds
- 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:
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia sounds to Category:Wikipedia audio samples
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think audio samples is a more accurate description of what is being categorised. c.f. Category:Non-free audio samples. Tim! (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Raw food
- 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. — ξxplicit 05:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Raw food to Category:Raw foodism
- Nominator's rationale: Category is to describe philosophy/movement of eating raw food, rather than just the type of food. Otherwise food items, such as a carrot and an apple, could be listed in the category. nirvana2013 (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – also the people listed should be in a subcat (such as 'Advocates of raw food' or similar). Occuli (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and main article Raw foodism. "Raw foodism" and "raw foodist" are used throughout the article, over terms like "rawism" or "raw food movement."- choster (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the category, I don't know if it needs renaming (I did obviously ponder this question when creating it). Some of the contents are actually raw foods, like Category:Uncooked meat dishes and its subcategories, Cookie dough, Crudités etc. Carrot and Apple are not necessarily eaten raw, so it would be inappropriate to categorise them as "Raw food", so that argument is a straw man. I do think that listing food items that are eaten raw is a useful categorisation. In this light, Category:Raw foodism could be a new subcategory of Category:Raw food - I didn't do this to begin with as I felt it would be overcategorisation for a new category. I'm happy for someone to subcategorise the people into Category:Raw foodists or similar, I just slightly ran out of steam after populating the category. Fences&Windows 11:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does however state on Category:Raw food that "The main article for this category is Raw foodism", hence my proposal to rename to Category:Raw foodism. Also, just like carrots and apples, cookie dough can be cooked. Food items that are only eaten in their raw state would be better served in Category:Raw foods. nirvana2013 (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.