August 8
Category:Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year
- 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. ℯxplicit 03:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: I have started creating subcats for Grammy Award winners, which includes thousands of artists who have won various Grammies. The subcats are sorted by genre, with the form Grammy Award winners for rap music, Grammy Award winners for dance and electronic music, etc. I think that the prefix "Grammy Award winners for…" should be reserved for artists, so that this category Grammy Award winners for Album of the Year should contain artists who have won an Album of the Year award. The category currently contains the albums, not the artists, therefore I suggest changing this category name to simply "Grammy Award for Album of the Year". This would be consistent with existing categories Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Grammy Award for Song of the Year. When that's done, we can place the relevant artists in a new category bearing the old name. — JFG talk 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for consistency, although I'm not sure if the name of the new category (= the current name of the current category) is distinct enough from the proposed name of the current category. But further discussion about that may take place in a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2018 (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:Voting lobby groups
- 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:Electoral reform groups. ℯxplicit 03:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Undefined category. No corresponding article. Appears to duplicate Category:Election and voting-related organizations, which is much better popoulated. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (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:Peak body organisations
- 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 to Category:Advocacy groups in Australia. ℯxplicit 03:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Peak body is an Australian term for what is generally called a Lobbying organization in other places. As a category title it's inconsistent and a bit confusing. Rathfelder (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2018 (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:Socialist economists
- 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. ℯxplicit 03:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial intersection between educational background (economist) and political conviction (socialist). Note by the way that this reasoning does not apply to the subcategory because Marxian economics concerns an economics school of thought rather than a political conviction. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I moved six articles into the Marxian economists subcategory: Nobuo Okishio, Ernest Mandel, David Laibman, Antonie Pannekoek, Rudolf Hilferding and Andrew Kliman. The category is in no danger of being too small and this was not meant to influence the outcome but I just wanted to highlight it. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I could see a hypothetical biography where someone went to school and majored in economics and then went on to be a socialist political activist. But then I read through the articles: Michael Albert actually majored in physics but has been a socialist cooperative economist, John Roemer writes about distributive justice, and Sidney Webb, 1st Baron Passfield writes about how nationalization will end poverty. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclined to keep -- Being a socialist is a strong indication of the approach that socialist economists take to their subject (likewise Marxist economists). The intersection in this case is anything but trivial. Economics is a social science, not a science, and one where a person's political point of view very much reflects how they seal with it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclined to keep as well. Marxian economics may be the dominant school of thought within Western socialist economics after Marx, but Marx and Engels themselves as well as several pre-Marxian socialists, Christian socialists or social anarchists were socialist economists, yet no Marxians. --PanchoS (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- keep nomination shows a false understanding of this category. Being a 'socialist economist' is certainly defining and different from the run of the mill capitalist economists Hmains (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2018 (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:Christianity of the Middle Ages
- 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:Christianity in the Middle Ages. This option was backed by rationales, while others mostly were not. ℯxplicit 03:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Christianity of the Middle Ages to Category:To be decided
- Nominator's rationale:
Option A: "Christianity in the Middle Ages" was proposed as a speedy nomination, but without a valid rationale. It would match the parent Religion in the Middle Ages and only a few others.
Option B: "Medieval Christianity" would match the preceding Early Christianity & Late ancient Christianity, siblings Medieval Hinduism & Medieval Islam, and most national categories within Category:Middle Ages.
Option C: "Medieval history of Christianity" would match the succeeding Early Modern history of Christianity and Late Modern history of Christianity, and a couple of regional categories within Category:Middle Ages.
Option D, keep at current name, matching sub-cat Christians of the Middle Ages.
Option E would follow the main article History of Christianity during the Middle Ages. – Fayenatic London 08:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is a closely related sub-cat Roman Catholicism of the Middle Ages, but that has additional issues re "Catholic Church" and can be discussed separately after this one is closed. – Fayenatic London 10:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment our main article on the period is at Middle Ages not Medieval Period, not that such a choice binds us, but may be of instruction. I don't like "Medieval Religion" formulations as it seems to have a connotation that the religion of that period differs from that religion of today - rather than just groups articles having to do with that religion during that period. Of course, some religious practices have changed, but some would argue the religion, per se, has not. Maybe I'm reading too much into the wording? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in this observation, and that is why this alternative is less than optimal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for option E, for consistency with the article name. But I wouldn't really oppose any of the five options. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support for options B or D, oppose C and E. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-
- WP:COMMONNAME, and they aren't really "history of" categories. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly "history of" is redundant in combination with Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Option B -- The earlier part of the main article is about the post-Roman, which is probably a sibling for Late Antique Christianity, as late antique tends to refer to the continuing Eastern Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Option A, primarly, or secondarly option E, per comment above by Carlossuarez46. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Option E to blindly follow the lead of the main article History of Christianity during the Middle Ages. (That being said, I would support a move of that article to "Christianity during the Middle Ages" and I'm fine with any option.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Option A or D or F (=RevelationDirect's variant), i.e. Christianity in/of/during the Middle Ages, per comments of Carlossuarez (avoid medieval religion) and Johnbod (avoid history of), and have this discussion followed up by an RM for the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Option A Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2018 (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:Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood
- 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. – Fayenatic London 06:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge sub-category into Category:Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood --Danski454 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The category has no scope for expansion. The one article will serve very well as a main article for the subcategory. I might have said upmerge, but I do not think that would add anything useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2018 (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.