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. – FayenaticLondon 17:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. See Category:Lutheran churches, Category:Catholic churches, Category:Methodist churches, etc. Virtually all of our categories for articles about individual parishes/congregations/insert-other-terminology-here use simply "churches", regardless of the faith, because we cover both the building and the group that occupies it in the same article. For example, see Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church (Steubenville, Ohio). If we rename this category, it implies that we'll also have a separate category for parishes: if we don't have a parishes category tree, readers and editors will become confused, and if we do have a parishes category tree, virtually all articles will be in both trees — talk about redundancy. Unless we have so much information that WP:SPLIT is appropriate, it's absurd to have separate articles on buildings and the groups that occupy them, and unless we're having separate articles, we don't need separate categories. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article fits perfectly in a church buildings category only. Naturally the article also discusses the different users of the building, that's simply what you would expect from an article about a building, but that's no compelling reason to create a category for users parallel to a buildings category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It equally would belong in a parishes category. The ambiguity that you identify is intentional, because it can include both occupants and buildings, unlike your proposed name. It would be thoroughly unhelpful to move some articles into a buildings category and others into a parishes category; it would be downright confusing to have extensive overlap between "GO church buildings" and "GO parishes"; and it would be impossible to run long-term with "GO church buildings" but not "GO parishes", because someone would soon notice its absence and create it. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose As per above, we do not distinguish between congregations and buildings. Mangoe (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support per nom, Category:Church buildings and Category:Church buildings by denomination. Nyttend's arguments about the congregation and the building are valid, but are not applicable here. In Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, the churchorChurch as a body and the church as a building do not coincide, and the local group is not a self-governing congregation (the diocese would serve this role). As such, the word churchesinGreek Orthodox churches is very ambiguous, and using church buildings for all similar categories makes perfect sense. There is no need to create ... parishes articles. Place Clichy (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support such contents are largely about the buildings, not the broader works and impact of those buildings' regular congregations. Agree that this may be deviating from previous standards, but it is a good change given the focus of Wikipedia church articles upon the physical church itself rather than being sociological analysis of the congregation. SFB 19:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Place Clichy makes a very strong argument that we have to consider the specific issues involved in the specific denomination. Category:Methodist churches is not at all a workable parrallel. In fact, in some ways the very name of this category is pushing an Americo-low Church protestant/especially Evangelical usage of the term. We should avoid categorizing in a way that imposes the extreme congregationalist nature and outlook of some religionists on other religionists who in no way share this outlook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unless I hear better arguments, I think that the standard usage of the word implies the building, which is also the home of a somewhat-autonomous community, under the leadership of a priest. This reality holds true even in sacramental traditions. Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually in the Roman Catholic Diocese in Detroit there are many parishes with multiple locations, and in some other cases there are multiple parishes in the same building. The parish is not in all cases connected with only one building. Also to make things more complex in some cases one priest heads multiple parishes. So church buildings and Churches are not one and the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more elaborate discussion about a similar nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2015 (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.
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 as nominated. – FayenaticLondon 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, contains only one article, and it is uncertain if this one city has been a Greek colony at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Furius (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong target: Merge but to something in a Hellenistic colonies tree. The one city has a Greek name, which implies a Greek origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The city has a Greek name because its existence is based on a Greek-language source. It doesn't prove a Greek or Hellenistic origin of the city itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Although I half wonder if the article should be stand alone, or merged and redirected to have better context. We need to remember we categorize by what something is, not what it is named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2015 (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.
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 18:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Given the content of this category, the category should rather be named Category:Ancient Greek sites by country. However, the latter category already exists and it contains all the content of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a space which could include Hellenistic colonies for which no archaeological remains are known? Also, this seems to be pointing in the opposite direction from your proposal below for Syria and Iraq? Furius (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is definitely space for that: Category:Hellenistic colonies by origin. The proposals are not really contradictory, because for ancient cities (including colonies) it makes sense to categorize by contemporary geography. While for archaeological sites - which are part of current science and current tourism - it makes sense to categorize by current country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse change -- All the sub-cats are "ancient Greek sites in foo". However due to their locations they will derive from Alexander or his successors, whom we refer to as Hellenistic. or perhaps "Hellenistic settlements" (or cities) rather than colonies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested something similar in this discussion but there are apparently good reasons to keep the 'colonies' term. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: please would you clarify your opinion of what should happen here? @Furius: do you have a view? – FayenaticLondon 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, between Category:Hellenistic colonies by origin and Category:Ancient Greek sites by country I don't see the need for this category. Secondly, it is not so that they are all derive from Alexander and his successors. Ras al-Bassit dates back to the Archaic period, as do several other Syrian coastal settlements. And the subcats currently in this category are not exhaustive - once people start adding Category:Hellenistic colonies in Turkey, we return to a very substantial degree of overlap. Thirdly, "Hellenistic settlements" or "Hellenistic sites" would seem to include all settlements/sites that existed in the Hellenistic (including, e.g. Athens and Sparta), while "Hellenistic colonies" limits to places colonised in the Hellenistic period (which is a useful group to maintain a separate category tree for). Furius (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will go along with the consensus. If colonies is preferred, let us stick to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2015 (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.
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, but I will merge to Communist parties where required. – FayenaticLondon 19:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Superflous category, already well covered by Category:Communist parties. The concept of communist parties originated in Lenin's though, developed through the 21 conditions of the Communist International and Marxism-Leninism. There are a number of Communist Parties that have moved in order directions in later years (such as the French Communist Party), and Leninism and Marxism-Leninism are not exact synonyms, but trying to double-categorize 99.99% of all CPs as both 'Communist' and 'Leninist' adds no value. Soman (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nomination's logic does not address the fact that we have categories for Hoxhaist, Marxist, Stalinist, and Trotskyist parties. The nominated category delivers the same function as those and does not lead to overcategorisation. SFB 19:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All articles that are categorized as undifferentiated "communist" could be categorized in this category. Hoxhaist, Stalinist, and Trotskyist are the exceptions and therefore justify subcategories. This is the rule, and so would largely be duplicative. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Good Olfactory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a normal or accepted way to subdivide the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (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.
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: Not sure about this. On the one hand you might expect quite some potential for this category. On the other hand, Greek colonies are abundantly categorized already (by origin, by current country, by ancient region), besides it seems like nobody cares about this 5th-century category (poorly parented, poorly populated) and finally the category doesn't have any xth-century sister categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's (probably) useful to categorise Greek colonies by chronology in some way and theoretically possible to assign many (but not all) Greek colonies to centuries. I'd think, though, that broader chronological periods, like the Iron Age one and the Hellenistic one are more useful. For instance, Naucratis ought to be categorised geographically with Alexandria, but we lose something if it is not also categorised chronologically with Al-Mina and Rhegium which represent part of the same period of expansion. Furius (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on Iron Age and Hellenistic ones, but the nominated category just falls in between. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amend scheme -- I would prefer the split into pre-classical, classical, and Hellenistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support scheme based on period, rather than century which is more arbitrary and less relevant. SFB 19:40, 24 March 2015 (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:Greek colonies by time of foundation[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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 17:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a useful parent for Iron Age and Hellenistic, and if we retain the fifth-century category, it will be a useful parent for that, too. What's more, there are three centuries between the Hellenistic and Iron Age periods, if I understand rightly from the description atop Category:Iron Age Greece and the intro to Hellenistic period. We could easily fill this hole with other century categories, or with individual colony articles if we decide that the fifth-century category is unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not part of a more general "colonies by time of foundation" tree, so I would only see this as useful if the number of subcategories would be(come) much more substantial. Just three subcats doesn't make sense since the parent category isn't big either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IN principle Keep The Hellenistic ones derive from Alexander's conquests. The others from earlier events. I am not sure of the usefulness of the Iron Age category, which would be better upmerged or split into something more specific. My preference would be for a split between pre-Classical, Classical and Hellenistic. I suspect that in many cases the date of foundation is not precisely known, so that vague periods should provide useful imprecision. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The question here is only should we have this method of grouping sub-categories. The current sub-categories will remain, just not with a specific aspect group. At heart this is a question of whether wikipedia needs to group like sub-categories in an intermediate category. This merger will not change the categorization of any article, just of some categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2015 (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.
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.
Keep, although rename to "light-years" for clarity. It's quite helpful to categorise heavenly objects by their distance from us, and there's no way to do it without being arbitrary. If we're doing this, a logarithmic scale is the simplest way: the farther away things are from us, the less we know about them. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To the degree that this is correct, a list sorted by distance would make more sense than a category sorted by default sort key. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at 10Gly light-travel-distance, this would collect much of the universe (the universe is less than 15Gly light-travel-distance to the edge) At 100Mly, the distance measurements already significantly diverge from comoving distance and light travel distance, so anything located at cosmological distances make no sense being organized by lightyear, and instead should be organized by redshift. And any distance in the 100ly and more categories would collect thousands of potential topics, making it completely WP:NONDEF. Further, distance uncertainties ramp up once you get past the Local Group, so even categorizing things correctly is problematic with the initial measurements and then conversion calculations from the measured quantities into distances. The only possibly useful category is the 10ly one (or similar small size, like 5pc), since it clearly for things nearby the Earth. Everything else is not defining. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete My reasoning is along the lines of the IP above: distance isn't so much the distinguishing mark as is feature. The hierarchy of distance is more like "local neighborhood, our galactic arm, adjacent arms, our galaxy, local cluster, ...." The distances chosen come across as arbitrary and unrelated to actual astronomical structures. Mangoe (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly useful categorization scheme for astronomical objects. Its really OK to have the larger distances, because even at the "small" scales Earth is covered by a sub-category. Its like saying we can't have a category for Asia because "that would include every Asian city!!". Fotaun (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the first 3. The symbols kly, Mly and Gly are rarely used other than in WP articles - such categories help to promulgate this undesirable self-reference. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This is a valid topic to explore as a list, but links between the objects at that distance are not required. The objects may be in entirely different parts of space and unrelated in terms of grouping. SFB 19:41, 24 March 2015 (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.
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 Syria, double merge for Iraq. For the record, the current contents are Birtha (Mesopotamia) and Seleucia. – FayenaticLondon 17:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ancient Greeks didn't have colonies that far in Asia. The archaeological sites in Syria and Iraq are remains of Alexander the Great's military campaign and of the subsequent Hellenistic era in Syria and Iraq. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Syria at least contains some Greek sites which are pre-Hellenistic: e.g. Ras al-Bassit. I admit that I struggle to think of any Greek sites in Iraq before the Hellenistic, but some small settlement doesn't seem out of the question as a possibility (The Branchadai of Miletos were taken away east by the Persians, for instance). In general, it seems better to cast the broader net. Furius (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our article Ancient Greece defines the period from 8th Century BC to ca. 600 AD, which encompasses the Hellenistic period. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On reflection there seems little advantage to a category specifically for ancient Greek sites in Iraq and the double upmerge makes sure they are where people looking for such a thing will find them. Furius (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename etc -- If there is doubt as to whether the Hellenistic settlements were colonies, we could call them "Hellenistic cities". No objection to a multiple merge, as long as the Greek character of the foundation continues to be recorded. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 4th Class[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. – FayenaticLondon 19:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: there are 4 classes of this Estonia order, the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana; how can recipients of the 4th class be a digtinguishing characteristic any more than of other national orders? (many are unsourced, as well, in their articles, where it is not always even mentioned )
FWIW, Gauck, the only famous person here, received the Collar of the Order, a much higher distinction. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that "national orders are somewhat different" has been thrown out, but never explained. We have no obligation to recognize them, and when they are 4th class they are not likely to be defining to the individual. On another related note, national orders also tend to be the ones that people accrue the most of. There are multiple people in 50+ awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2015 (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.
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: This needs to be refined or split or something: it includes albums by several performers but is categorized under schemes by performer, when the performer is not George Gershwin. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entries are a mishmash; a song, a musical, a tribute album. Diffuse the entries into the standard categories and what is left can go into Category:George Gershwin for the time being. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move backtoCategory:George Gershwin albums, as it was originally intended. Anything that is not an album recorded by GG should be moved per Richhoncho.All the best: RichFarmbrough, 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC).
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.
