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. At the very least, there is no support to merge the nominated category into the designated targets, but alternatives are worth considering as outlined within this discussion. ℯxplicit 04:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if this merger is agreed, then Category:Texts in the Septuagint should be placed into the nominated category's third parent, Category:Christian biblical canon. – FayenaticLondon 23:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and previous discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reject: the category of Apocrypha is strictly linked to the teologial point of view of some Protestant churches (the article Biblical apocrypha refers directly to the Geneva Bible). Protestant Churches represent a minority into the Christian World. To force Wikipedia to allign to such teological cathegorization of Biblical Books canceling and removing cathegories which does not comply with the Protestant point of view is contrary to WP:5P2. Kindly leave also categories which do not allign themselves with Protestant theology. A ntv (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may well be the case that the use of the term Apocrypha is indeed the position of Protestant denominations to own the terminology, the language, thereby justifying their canonical positions. Nevertheless, it is a thing. Wiki cannot ignore that it is a real thing. Wiki can of course explain in scope notes that other denominations reject the idea that the books are apocrophal at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont object to leave a category named Apocrypha, because, as you say, it is a thing. I object to remove all categories which doesn't fit the Protestant Theology. A ntv (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I don't think that the solution to having three competing sets of deuterocanonical books is to eliminate all the various categories which list them! Maybe we have too many such categories, but it seems to me that it makes sense to have a category for each of the three canons (Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox) and then get rid of the others. I'm also not convinced that we need Category:Texts in the Septuagint unless it contains texts which no canon accepts. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is that each major denomination accepts different bits of the Septuagint for their canon. There is therefore a need for a category that holds the entirety of the Septuagint, regardless of denomination. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That means categorizing all of the Tenakh into the Septuagint category as well as whatever other categories the various books are already members of. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the latter is too complicated and we may just keep one Eastern Orthodox category after all, regardless the status of the additional bible books. In any case we should not keep this category andCategory:Texts in the Septuagint because of their strongly overlapping content; one of them should be redirected to the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article on the Septuagint there is a disputed book in the Eastern Orthodox Canon. 4 Maccabees seems to be a late addition to the Septuagint, had already been recognized as a late addition by the 4th century, and most sources think it was written in the 1st or 2nd century AD. Eastern Orthodox Bibles either include it in appendixes or do not include it at all. Dimadick (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should retain a category limited to the Catholic deuterocanon, since that is consistently defined by the Roman Catholic Church. See also Category talk:Deuterocanonical books where Marcocapelle has argued that the deuterocanon categories should be part of both Category:Old Testament and Category:Old Testament apocrypha; I accept that as a WP:NPOV outcome. Perhaps the category nominated here should be renamed to Category:Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books, as that is at least more readily understood than its current name. I am willing to withdraw this nomination and start a new one; Category:Deuterocanonical books could also be nominated for renaming to "Catholic deuterocanonical books". – FayenaticLondon 11:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that it's best to withdraw. Also the Easter Orthodox regard all the Catholic deutro canon as being part of their deutro canon so really the title would have to be something clumsy like
Category:Additional deuterocanonical books in Eastern Orthodoxy. I've drawn up a chart in my sandbox. I'll share it later.Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we can do without "Additional" in the category name. Rather we should have Category:Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books that consists of Category:Catholic deuterocanonical books plus a handful of articles. And by the way Category:Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books would simply be a rename and purge of the now nominated Category:Category:Anagignoskomena. What I'm less sure about is how we go ahead with Category:Old Testament, is that category going to be about the Old Testament in the broadest possible sense (i.e. Eastern Orthodox sense)? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would copy all the members of the Catholic deuterocanon category into the Orthodox deuterocanon category, and structure those two as sibling categories, rather than having the Catholic one as a sub-cat of the Orthodox one. Also, I would populate both Category:Old Testament and Category:Old Testament apocrypha in the broadest sense, including both the deuterocanon categories. – FayenaticLondon 12:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that I made to help me make sense of it all. It's not totally accurate. One denomination's pseudepigrapha is another denomination's anagignoskomena.
Canonicity of Books of the Christian Bible by Denominational Family
Legend Associating Colour Groups to Denominational Families
Denominational Family
Protestants
Catholics
Eastern Orthodox
Georgian Orthodox Church
Oriental Orthodox of Ethiopia & Eritrea
Syriac Orthodox Church
I've updated this with a new legend. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should be bortn in mind that apocrypha in its origin refers to something that is hidden, these are originally thought to be the texts of hidden knowledge. It is a much later use that apographal=false. So we may need to better think out the headings. However historically "The Apocrypha" refered to some or all of these books, and pseudopigrapha is the term historically used for works not considered to be authentic scripture in any major religious traditions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The etimologhy of the word apocrypha is just an issue of historical interest. Now apocrypha means that categorization so known in the Protestant theology. As in naming articles, also in naming cathegories we shall consider the commonly recognizable names (WP:UCRN). A ntv (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2017 (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 reality television series about game wardens
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. --Tavix(talk) 18:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:American reality television series about game wardens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Abundant Life Ministries albums
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. --Tavix(talk) 18:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Abundant Life Ministries albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:delete, the category contains three redirects which all three redirect to the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would create a precedent that is probably undesirable. There may be tons of music albums in lists in musician articles, without a stand-alone article about the album, we do not want to end them all up as redirects in categories, do we? Marcocapelle (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (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:Islamic names
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. – FayenaticLondon 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as Islamic, Christian or Jewish names. These names come from any language and religion is not a language Sarah Canbel (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it certainly IS possible to identify specifically Islamic names, starting with Mhd and Ali, and religion of origin must surely be a defining characteristic. (It's also possible to identify specifically Jewish names and, slightly less straightforwardly, Christian names, not to mention Hindu names). Eustachiusz (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed and Ali are Arabic names per-Islam. Muhammad means praised, commendable, laudable and Ali means "high" or "elevated". It seems to me that Islamization of Arabic names.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the language there is a group of names used specifically by Moslems and thus identifiable as Islamic. The category could be far better used but it doesn't mean that it should be deleted.Eustachiusz (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Categorize names by language and use articles (not categories) to describe the origins of names (religious or otherwise), the popularity of names amongst adherents of particular religions etc. DexDor(talk) 20:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if there's a policy to this effect, could you point to it?Eustachiusz (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT with Category:Arabic given names, in most cases names that are used by Muslims all over the world have an Arabic origin. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of these names is no longer exclusively Islamic. The feminine name Fatima has been used for the city of Fátima, Portugal, and for a famous Marian apparition associated with the city. It has become a popular name for Roman Catholics, who associate the name with Mary, mother of Jesus and with her title as Our Lady of Fátima. Dimadick (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle. Thanks for the link. But while it's apparently true that all Islamic names are Arabic, not all Arabic names are Islamic. So I return to my point: if a name is particular to one religion, as most Islamic names are, that is surely a defining characteristic of that name, and should be categorised. Eustachiusz (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If two categories have a very large overlap, as in this case, we only keep one. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Islamic nature of these names is not as universal as some claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2017 (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:New Testament narrative
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. --Tavix(talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:NONDEF, while the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles obviously contain narratives, it is not a sort of characteristic that is commonly and consistently associated with these books. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I regard this as a wholly unnecessary excrescence of the category system. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book of Revelation is a narrative? Really? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-standard method of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2017 (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:Christian narrative
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. --Tavix(talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough contents to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2017 (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:Magic Kaito
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.
Nominator's rationale: With only three articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT) —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (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:My hero academia
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.
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization (WP:SMALLCAT). —Farix (t | c) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. Once we get to four or five articles, WP:SMALLCAT no longer really applies. This is suitable and useful. - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:08, 18 November 2017 (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:Spokespersons
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. --Tavix(talk) 18:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I'll acknowledge that "spokespeople" and "spokespersons" both exist as plural forms of "spokesperson", I'm not seeing any strong evidence that "spokespersons" is the preferred form, as was claimed when this was moved the other way half a decade ago in a CFR discussion that featured no participation besides the nominator. I did a Google News search to compare relatively current usage stats, and while I got 74,000 hits for "spokespeople" and 116,000 for "spokespersons", in reality the "spokespersons" results are artificially inflated about 30 to 40 per cent by hits on the singular "spokesperson" and the possessive "spokesperson's" (four false hits out of ten on the first page of results alone!) -- which means that there's not actually a statistically significant difference between the usages, and I can't find any English usage guide that prescribes "spokespersons" over "spokespeople" either. And so, if we have to arbitrarily pick one or the other because they're effectively equal, then it's better to pick the one that's more consistent with things like Category:Sportspeople and Category:Businesspeople, and thus more rationally predictable by users who don't already have the insider baseball tip on it. Though certainly we should maintain the "persons" form as a categoryredirect. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Spokespersons has certainly always been the preferred version in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our naming conventions aren't governed solely by what's preferred in the UK — they're governed by worldwide English usage. If there were a UK-specific subcategory for the British ones, it could certainly be named "British spokespersons" on that basis, but worldwide, there's no clearcut preference for "spokespersons". So for the unnationalized parent category we're basically left tossing a coin between alternatives that are about equal in worldwide usage, and accordingly I've already explained in my nomination statement how I believe we should make that otherwise arbitrary choice. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. I'm saying that the category is already named "Spokespersons" and given that it is most common in the UK, per WP:ENGVAR it should be left as it is. Especially given there's no evidence that "Spokespeople" is more common than spokespersons in the rest of the world either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But where's the evidence that it's less common? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that relevant? The term has no strong association with a particular country. The current name is common in a major English-speaking country. WP:ENGVAR says we therefore leave it as it is. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spokespersons is a far more common plural.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence that it's more common? Fully 40 per cent of the "spokespersons" hits I got on a Google News search were matches for the singular "spokesperson" or the possessive "spokesperson's", thus not counting as evidence of the term's plural form — and leaving "spokespersons" almost exactly equal in usage to "spokespeople". Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (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:Political spokesperson
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.
Propose renaming Category:Political spokesperson to Category:Political spokespeople
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia categories are named in the plural, not the singular, because they exist to contain multiple entries. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but organization refer to their spokesperson more frequently than to their spokespeople. I think it should remain and an additional category created.--Wikipietime (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's because most organizations only have one spokesperson rather than multiple spokespeople — you've completely missed the point, which is that our category contains multiple people and not just one person. The category name is not governed by whether the Republican Party would say "Kayleigh McEnany is our spokesperson" or "Kayleigh McEnany is our spokespeople" when referring to her as an individual — it's governed by the total overall worldwide number of spokespeople for anything that we have articles about to file in our category with her. And we have more than one. Bearcat (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a "person" is a member or a larger universe of "people". A person has the inference or a sole individual and therefore has a distinction and utility. The use of "spokesperson" indicates that there exist a designated person, as opposed to a group of people. It should stand. --Wikipietime (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are completely missing the point. Our categories are not named in the singular just because each individual entry in the category is a single person or thing rather than multiple people or things — they're named in the plural, because the category as a whole represents a group. Donald Trump is one president of the United States, not several, but the category for that characteristic is still named Presidents, because it contains all the presidents and not just him. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to plural, this is a set category. I have no opinion about spokespersons versus spokespeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our naming conventions aren't governed solely by what's preferred in the UK. There are numerous other English-speaking countries in the world where there isn't a clearcut preference for spokespersons over spokespeople, and the UK doesn't get to override everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2017 (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:Bhutanese women politicians
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 per current convention, without prejudice to a fresh broader nomination changing the convention (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:NC for this tree is currently "Country women in politics", not "Country women politicians", per Category:Women in politics by nationality. There may be a case to be made that the categories should be renamed to something else (maybe even "women politicians"), but that wouldn't apply to this category in isolation -- it would need to be addressed as a comprehensive batch discussion of the whole tree. So unless somebody's prepared to formulate a batch nomination on the whole shebang, this should be moved to conform to the standard rather than standing alone as the sole outlier. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why in politics is the convention, in fact it looks less gender neutral to me as if it's rare for a woman to be a politician. Why not just women politicians like women writers etc. @Ipigott:@Rosiestep:♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why I said there may be a case that the standard convention should be moved from that to this instead. But that would require a batch nomination on all of the affected categories, so that all potential views one way or the other can be considered — we can't establish a consensus like that in a minor discussion over just one outlier from the way the others are currently named. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much easier to keep to one convention.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment. Agree, keep to one convention, per Ipigott. Also, agree that the convention should be, as Dr. Blofeld mentions, Country women politicians. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we establish consensus then to move them all to women politicians? We don't use "Bhutanese men in politics", so why do we do that with women?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This will require a new nomination, of all categories involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if somebody's willing to nominate them all for a group discussion. Not if you expect a tree-wide consensus to be established by a single isolated discussion on a single isolated category that none of the others have been tagged for inclusion in, though. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2017 (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.