July 31
Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 2009–14
- 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 match other states, e.g. the sub-cats of Category:Members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The sibling categories should be nominated at wp:CFDS as C2C. – Fayenatic London 09:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 2009–14 to Category:Andhra Pradesh MLAs 2009–14
- Nominator's rationale: Andhra Pradesh Legislature comprises of two houses- Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council. While term of Assembly is for five years the Council is a continuing house. The creator of Category:Members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, 2009–14 perhaps did not this. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, we actually shouldn't be creating a separate category for each individual session of the same legislative body — this just creates category bloat, as any person who remains in the same office for multiple terms ends up in two or three or five or ten of these categories. Rather, if subcategorization of the MLAs is desired, it should be done by political party rather than by term years — while the membership of a particular session of the legislature should be handled in a list instead of a category. Just delete rather than renaming. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom -- Bearcat is wrong. There is much precedent for this: there is a category for UK, GB and English MPs for each Parliament back at least to the 17th century; I think this applies to US Senate and House, and to many other legislatures. However to limit the "bloat" the category names are kept as short as possible, e.g. Category:UK MPs 2005-10. The target is thus exactly as it should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2014 (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:Last Judgement and Judgment (Christianity)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Judgment (Christianity) to Category:Judgment in Christianity and Category:Last Judgement to Category:Judgment in Islam after rationalising the contents of the latter. I am not persuaded that either Category:Judgment in religion or Category:Last judgment in Christianity are needed, but if anyone finds sufficient contents to justify them, they can add them. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Last Judgment is a very common term in Christianity and, with the current category structure, Christian articles related to this topic should be classified in Category:Last Judgement as well as in Category:Judgment (Christianity) which are two partially overlapping brother categories. However, it's very counter-intuitive to classify an article in two brother categories anyway. It would be less confusing if Last Judgment would no longer be used as a category name, either by:
- merging Category:Last Judgement and Category:Judgment (Christianity) into a new Category:Judgment in religion;
- or by keeping two categories and only use religion as a criterion to separate, i.e. rename Category:Judgment (Christianity) into a new Category:Judgment in Christianity and rename Category:Last Judgement into a new Category:Judgment in Islam, and recategorize articles accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think there is a third option of creating Category:Judgment in religion and keeping Category:Last Judgement as a child of that category, covering aspects of Last Judgment. While certainly an important element of Christian thought, final judgement is not unique to that religion. We could also possibly keep the Christian-specific child as Category:Judgment in Christianity. I see no problem in categorising articles in both those child category types, as final judgement is a separate concept from Christian judgement in general. SFB 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ALT-3 Rename Category:Judgment (Christianity) into Category:Judgment in Christianity. Secondly, create Category:Judgment in religion. Let it have two children: Category:Judgment in Christianity and Category:Judgment in Islam. Thirdly, let Category:Last Judgement be upmerged to Category:Judgment in Christianity with any Islam related articles being first separated to the Islam category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ALT-3 -- Purging Last Judgment of Islamic items by transferring them to an Islamic category first. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ALT-3, with the refinement that Last Judgment not be upmerged but kept as a child of Judgment in Christianity ALT-3 seems preferable pr Laurel Lodged, but not all Judgment in Christianity is the last Judgment. There is quite a number of Christians who believe that some souls are judged well before the end of days (hence, saints in heaven - and hell is not vacant either), whilst others await judgment at the Last Judgment (purgatory souls, for example). Roman Catholics, I believe, are not unique in this dichotomy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Judgment - Christian Judgment - Christian Last Judgment
- Judgment (- Islamic Judgment?) - Islamic Last Judgment
- Which would be okay provided that we won't suffer from WP:SMALLCAT issues - which I simply can't oversee at the moment. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2014 (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.
Kansas Territory
- 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, merge and split per nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming/merging/splitting
- Nominator's rationale: Categories should be historically accurate. Once again, I think that this is the most concise term, and is still not incorrect. Also, since the territory only existed for a short time (1854-1861), there's no need to make century/millennium categories, and these can just fall into the existing scheme. kennethaw88 • talk 03:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as nominated. Support if the targets are changed to in the Kansas Territory As proposed it reads horribly. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Something Support rename, with or without the "the" proposed by Vegaswikian. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Vegaswikian Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support generally -- the 1854-1861 categories should be Kansas Territory (with or without "the"). For a teritory that lasted 7 years, I see no need to have merge 1850s or 1860s categories to Category:Kansas Territory: the years can go directly into a Kansas Territory category, without intervening decades. With so little content, merge all establsiments categories to Category:Establishments in Kansas Territory. This is yet another case of applying a strcuture appropriate to recent times to an early period where it leads to long braches on a tree withg one leaf on the end: these hinder (not aid) navigation. If there were a chance of theri being better populated, it might be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per historical accuracy (with or without "the").GreyShark (dibra) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We've gone over the issue of whether the "the" is needed for these U.S. territories several times—I don't think there has ever been a consensus to add in the "the" since either form is acceptable and typically the form without the "the" is more commonly used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While both many be in use, one is clearly not good American English when you read the category name. How can we elect to ignore that fact? If there are two choices, use the one that uses correct English! Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Who defines what "good American English" is? There is no government agency or other widely recognized source that determines such things. The "properness" of American English is determined by usage alone, and usage here goes both ways, and the form without the "the" appears to me to be even more common. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that there is one person or source, especially for our categories. However the proposed name without the 'the' simply reads and sounds wrong to someone who has American English as their first language for quite a while. Why is the 'the' OK in country categories but not in US territory categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're asserting some pretty broad claims, and I just am not convinced that they are necessarily the case. Correct me if I'm off base here, but I think what you're getting at is that it sounds wrong to you. This is equally "anecdotal", I suppose, but I know of many sources, written by Americans, that do not use the "the", and I know a number of Americans that don't use a "the" when they talk about the U.S. territories either. They (and I) would say, "... in the Territory of FOO" if the U.S. territory were referred to in that way, but we would also say, "... in FOO Territory" if that name format was used. I don't think those are the only ways these are referred to, though, and I'm sure in some circles writers and speakers use the "the" regardless of the name format. So I just don't think there is one way that is right and one way that is wrong for this, even for American speakers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. To make this more pressing Kansas Territory was larger than modern Kansas, and these categories should follow the boundaries that existed at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2014 (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.