Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 3

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

edit

Judaic studies

edit
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: no consensus to change "Judaic" to "Jewish", so defaulting to option B. There was a consensus to remove "academia". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Rename as Option A following the article Jewish studies, also matching sub-cats e.g. Category:Israel Prize in Jewish studies recipients‎, Category:London School of Jewish Studies‎. The page Judaic studies redirects to Jewish studies, and the page starts Jewish studies (or Judaic studies) is an academic discipline centered on the study of Jews and Judaism. Certainly the words "in academia" are no longer needed, even if Judaic should be preferred for some reason. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A completely incorrect argument, because "Jewish" is very different from "Jewish worshippers", see the very first paragraph of Jews. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jewish is a broader term, encompassing secular as well as religious culture & people, so it would change the meaning & scope in a substantial way. We could, I suppose, have 2 sets of categories, with "Judaic" being a subcat of "Jewish". Cgingold (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2016 (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:Judaism terminology

edit
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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominated at speedy page by user:Cgingold in order to use adjective rather than noun for proper grammar, as in Category:Buddhist terminology, etc. Brought here for a full discussion in relation to the above Judaic studies. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
Oppose This is simply wrong. "Judaism terminology" is the terminology of Judaism itself, not the terminology of the studies of Judaism as an academic discipline, which is Judaic studies. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, I'm not sure what it is you're opposing, here, Debresser. It sounds like you're objecting to the comment from User:Sir Joseph - whereas I am simply requesting a rename to Category:Judaic terminology to fix the grammar, as I explained above. (This is actually in line with the names of the related categories being discussed above.) Would you be kind enough to respond directly? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you understand? I am replying to the nomination directly! And I am saying the proposed new title is factually wrong, and I explain why. Please read again. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I'm not getting: Why are you okay with "Judaic" in the other category names above, but not this one? I'm afraid I don't see a substantive difference. Cgingold (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on this proposal only. I didn't say anything about other categories. In this case, I think it is factually incorrect, a mistake between "Judaism" as a religion, and "Judaic studies" as an academic discipline. Other categories I didn't review, but the criteria would be the same. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about?? This is a discussion about Judaic terminology -- not "Judaic studies", which is being discussed above, not here. Cgingold (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... Yes, I know that, you have said that before. You see the word "studies" and your mind blanks out. I am sorry if you don't understand the argument. It is based on mistaking the words "Judaism" and "Judaic", which are not the same. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm gonna give this one last try. In order to make the name of this category grammatically correct, the word preceding "terminology" should be an adjective. "Judaism" is a noun, so it needs to be converted to the adjective, "Judaic", which of course means "pertaining or relating to Judaism" (just as "Buddhist" means "pertaining or relating to Buddhism"). I am not aware of any other term that could be used. And yet, you are asserting that there is some sort of fundamental distinction between "Judaism" and "Judaic". At this point I have to inquire, in what parallel universe is "Judaic" not the adjective for "Judaism"? Cgingold (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Cgingold (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never saw a combination of two nouns? Compare Category:Christianity studies. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is this "purge" that you are swinging around with on WP:CFD discussions? In my days, there was "delete", "merge", and "upmerge". Did you play a bit too much of Doom, perhaps? Please me more precise. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove articles that aren't about the topic, clean up the category content. (Just for info, I haven't invented the term, I copied it from other editors who have been contributing to this forum for a longer period than me, see e.g. this discussion.) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2016 (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:Thai television shows

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Shows" isn't used for this category tree. Paul_012 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (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:Unreleased films of the 1960s

edit
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:Unreleased films. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per naming structure for decadal film categories... or delete if preferred. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2016 (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:Unfinished films of the 1960s

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per naming structure for decadal film categories... or delete if preferred. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2016 (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:Jordanian religious building and structure stubs

edit
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently only 4 articles tagged as religious structure stubs for Jordan, and this country does not yet have a general structure category. Propose converting this to a general structure category for Jordan, and adding all appropriate structure templates to the category. I count nearly 40 structure articles without any additional stub tagging. Dawynn (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good find. Without too much digging, I brought the number of stubs which would end up in this category to 57 stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing in the above is a reason not to have a relevant subcategory. Especially since religious buildings must be numerous in Jordan, and this category has potential. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Potential doesn't mean fulfillment, which is why WPSS procedure is to wait until there are at least 60 articles that qualify for a stub template before creating the category. Once this criterion is met, a stub type can be proposed. Her Pegship (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are already 57, you understand, I hope, that there will be 60 soon enough. So why waste time? Especially since the 60 limit is completely arbitrary. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What we have 57 for is the proposed _target. The permcat for the existing stub category only includes 10 articles, many of them not stubs. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:45, 5 May 2016 (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:Bangladeshi boxing biography stubs

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Permcat only has 1 article, nowhere near the 60 needed to justify a stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 3 May 2016 (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:Baluchi language stubs

edit
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; content will be put in Category:Indo-European language stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Its associated permcat, and all subcats excluding Category:Articles containing Baluchi-language text, have a total population of 12 articles (possibly with some dplication) - not anywhere near the 60 required for a stub category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:42, 3 May 2016 (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:Post-imperial Latin poets

edit
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 for now, since discussed "dispersing" to centuries category was not done. But this can still be done if desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, all articles are from the 15th-18th centuries, cf article New Latin. Note that with this rename child Category:Medieval Latin poets should be purged and, furthermore, the nominated category should be parented to Category:New Latin-language writers instead of Category:Latin-language writers by period. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On some level I have to oppose this in that the division between medieval and post-medieval writers is more significant than the shift in the Latin language. I don't see a post-imperial category but a post-medieval category, under whatever name, is where I think we need to be going on this. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support New Latin covers the period from the 14th to the 19th century, when it was replaced by Contemporary Latin. This seems to cover the vast majority of the poets in this category. Note that the early modern period only covers the era from the 15th to the 18th century and excludes the 14th and and 19th centuries. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I had my doubts initially. The New Latin article indicates a start with Erasmus and his contemporaries in the early 16th century, when there was a renewed interest of classical Latin. This contrasts with medieval Latin where AE had been replaced by E and the accusative + infinitive construction for "he said that" had been replaced by "dixit quod". Scientific works appears in Latin, because for educated people classical Latin was a lingua franca, and made Latin a suitable medium for their international publication. Medieval Latin should be moved to be a sibling category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frankly I think the Latin language categories are getting over specialized. "New Latin" is too specialized as it only includes post-1500 poets.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just go with the centuries. It is difficult to determine the cut off between Late Latin, Medieval Latin, Early Medieval Latin, Renaissance etc. Just going by calendar centuries is much tidier.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I understand you correctly, you suggest splitting this category by century (starting the 16th century, because century categories up to the 15th already exist) and not using "New" in the category names. I understand the rationale and am neutral between this alternative and the original proposal. But at least something should change here because "post-imperial" is way too broad. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get done with populating Latin books by century first.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Actually I just noticed something about your request that goes to the heart of a problem here - you suggested New Latin stretch from the 14th to 19th century - however, currently, wikipedia states that 14th and 15th century Latin is Renaissance Latin. Like the distinctions with other historical languages, there isn't always a clear line.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2016 (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:Heterodox economics

edit
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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCMISC - Heterodox economics is everything outside mainstream economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2016 (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/2016_May_3&oldid=1074817160"
  NODES
admin 1
INTERN 1
Note 4
Project 2