Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

Category:Religious pornographic film actresses

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Religious pornographic film actresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member, low chance of expansion Editor2020 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no members at this time. Implausible category anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only plausible entry was removed for lack of reliable sources to confirm category membership. Yet another porn person by religion category with vague or unverifiable inclusion criteria. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a shaming category, like divorced Catholics as someone supposes being religious (however one can define that non-subjectively) is somehow incompatible with being a porn actress. Not all who kneel pray. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Feel free to categorize people by their occupation and religion, but the intersection of the two doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and fundamentally unverifiable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial and subjective. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless category - It'd be like creating "Non-Religious pornographic film actresses", Serves no useful purpose here, Better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 6 December 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:Baptist

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:Baptist Christianity

Propose renaming Category:Baptist to Category:Baptist Christianity

Nominator's rationale: I think "Baptist Christianity" is a better name for this category. This category is for the "denomination" or religious group as a whole. Other comparable categories are Category:Lutheranism, Category:Presbyterianism, etc., but there is no "Baptistism". The main article is Baptists, but Category:Baptists is used for the adherents. "Baptist" is either an adjective, or if it is a noun, it describes an adherent. We don't want to adopt the adherent meaning of "Baptist" here, so we need to adopt the adjectival meaning, which means we also need a noun, which can be "Christianity". Some of the subcategories already use this phrasing, eg, Category:Baptist Christianity in India and Category:Baptist Christianity in North America (and its many subcatgories). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per thoughtful nom, and particularly Category:Baptist Christianity in India etc. Oculi (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Normally I'd oppose because Baptists is the main article and the categories should blindly follow. But Category:Baptists is the biography sub-category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~, while I understand the rationale, the proposed name would be a term that is not commonly used in the real world. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See new vote in discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I can't think of a better name for this either. – Fayenatic London 18:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somehow. My solution would be to rename the present Category:Baptists to Category:Baptists (people) and this denominational one to Category:Baptists. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor that. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ALT per Peterkingiron Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT, as a better match with everyday language. (Possibly add a disambiguator in the main category too, Category:Baptists (denomination).) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I'm OK with the alternative proposal, but it would mean that subcategories such as Category:Baptist Christianity in India would be renamed to Category:Baptists in India, and that could be misinterpreted quite easily as a category for people or as a duplicate of Category:Indian Baptists. Maybe these subcategories will need an alternate solution. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). Note that Category:Baptists has not been nominated, so if the alternative is to be done, it will probably require a follow-up nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a CfD template to Category:Baptists just now. This means that this discussion should stay open for at least another week. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will probably be easiest (or at least the most straightforward, in an explaining-to-everyone-what's-going-on sense) for this discussion to be closed. That way, a discussion including all of the many subcategories that already use "Baptist Christianity in FOO" can be nominated along with all the others discussed above that need to be. There are 39 alone within Category:Baptist Christianity in the United States by state. But whatever the closer feels comfortable doing is OK with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still think the original nomination is the best idea, after considering the alternative proposals. Good Olfactory has pointed out the confusion that could arise from them. Although it initially sounds viable to use "Baptists (denomination)", in the loose sense of denomination i.e. a branch of Christianity, this is not wholly appropriate, as many local Baptist churches are independent and self-governing, not part of a denomination in the sense of a hierarchical or centrally-directed organisation. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone in this discussion had fair arguments and now for the closer it's a matter of weighing these arguments. I'd fully understand that the objection that I raised during the discussion that the term "Baptist Christianity" isn't everyday language will get less weight, after all the term has functioned well within Category:Baptist Christianity in the United States for almost three years now, while most Baptists live in the United States. On top of that, I think it's better to adopt the original nomination than to keep things unchanged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original proposal. "Baptist Christianity" would use the more WP:NATURAL language and it'd be easier to be consistent with the subcats. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:04, 5 January 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:Fictional gastropoda

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional gastropoda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Fictional gastropods. The only members of the category are Hutt (Star Wars) and Jabba the Hutt, which are alien species resembling gastropods, not actual (fictional) gastropods. Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hutts are aliens, not gastropods, so they don't belong in Category:Fictional gastropods. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 5 December 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:Opponents of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Opponents of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a nonsense category. Surely everybody is an "Opponent of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", regardless of their actual position on the rights and wrongs of each side's position and actions. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to category opaqueness per nom. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical per RolandR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsensical. Neutrality^talk 02:30, 2 December 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.