Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 20



Category:Pezizomycetes

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Pezizomycetes to Category:Pezizales
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. The class of fungi Pezizomycetes contains only one order Pezizales, so all articles in Category:Pezizomycetes should be moved down to Category:Pezizales. That will leave a category containing one sub-category and nothing else; I am not sure whether there would be a policy to retain that as part of the biological hierarchy. Fayenatic (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (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.

Category:Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century

 * 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: Move as proposed. That's not necessarily the conclusion of this specific discussion (which was complicated and confused by parallel concerns about ongoing discussion of "former", "converted", "established," etc.), but when the opinions expressed in this discussion are considered in the context of other contemporaneous CfDs like the one for 15th century R.C. churches and the resulting category move, the "move" !votes are the only ones that still make sense. Orlady (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century to Category:14th-century Roman Catholic church buildings
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the rest of the categories in Category:Roman Catholic church buildings by century. Normally this would be a speedy, but since this was just renamed to remove 'former' and 'established', a full discussion is probably needed. If there is a reason to rename the rest of the related categories to include completed in the category name, then that nomination should be made and discussed.  Leaving this one as the only one at this level using completed, does not seem reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There seems to have been a misunderstanding in the closure of the previous discussion, as most of the discussion related to "established". To my mind there seemed to be a majority in favour of keeping "former". These are all former Roman Catholic church buildings, so I think former or similar should appear in the category name. See also July 13 discussion re 15C category. Cjc13 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The move to just buildings by century was brought about by a discussion that had three participants.  A more recent discussion that had significantly more participants endorsed the use of completed for church buildings.  We want only buildings completed in the century so categorized, we do not want a chuch built in 1350 that is still used to be in 8 century cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A related decision on July 9 was to use the word "completed" rather than shortening categories to "yyyy(year) religious buildings". The nomination on July 13 was to tidy up a related sub-category and concluded with the statement of intention, "Someone can do the mass nomination in this tree to add completed." I was about to do that mass nomination of all the sister categories to match this one. As for Cjc13's point about former & current users: the example Church of St John the Baptist, Bristol shows categories including: "Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century | Anglican church buildings converted from Roman Catholicism | Church of England churches in Bristol" which IMHO gives a pretty clear picture. The articles currently in this category already also have a "converted" category, but there will be other Roman Catholic church buildings completed in the 14th century (e.g. in France, Italy) that remained Roman Catholic and therefore will be added to this category in due course. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment While all the articles currently in this category may no longer be Roman Catholic, there is no reason to assume there are no Roman Catholic churches completed in the 14th century that still function as such. Also we do not have categories like Category:Former buildings completed in 1923, Category:Former bridges completed in 1897 or even Category:Former hospitals established in 1898.  Even if the article is largely about the current sue of the building, if it opened as a hospital in 1898 we would categorize it under that heading.  I am beginning to think that we should categorize things by how they were used when completed, and if their use changes we can express that in another category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is already Category:Former church buildings with several useful sub-cats including country and denomination. It would not be necessary or appropriate to create more detailed sub-cats of that one for intersections such as date built. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Fayenatic is especially right since the presumed parent cat of the cat if we rename it would be Category:Former Roman Catholic church buildings. There are already three subcats there, one each for buildings converted to Lutheran and Anglican Church buildings and one for such buildings in the United States.  Adding in a set of subcats by when the buildings were completed would create another set of subcats which does not seem useful.  The current three cats are almost entirely non-overlapping.  Catholic buildings that became Lutheran or Anglican are primarily in Europe and changed when the area of the Church embraced the reformation, often in the process of the local state church changing its confessional alignment.  In the case of former Catholic Church buildings in the United States most have been voluntearily given up by the Catholic Church, although a few have been taken by the government in eminent domain procedures and leveled to build roads or in the case of two in Detroit a automobile factory parking lot.  A few may now be used by other denominations but the buildings were sold, not forcibly converted without assent of the central church hierarchy as was the case of many of the buildings that became Anglican or Lutheran.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The is really overcategorization of a triple or quadruple intersection. This is trying to answer too many questions:  What is it? A church. When was it built? 14th century. Who owned it when it was built? RC Church. Who owns it now? Someone else.  Just remove the ownership question, so we have a 14th century church (period/full stop).  It can be categorized by ownership separately. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: that would be acceptable to me, but such categories would be of sufficient size to justify sub-division by original denomination. Moreover, you have already conceded some indication of ownership as 14th century church rather than just 14th century religious building indicates that the owners were Christians (this sometimes changes). - Fayenatic (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * rename per nom At this point, rename to match all its sibling subcategories in Category:Roman Catholic church buildings by century. Other concerns can be discussed at another time and place.  Hmains (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: But that was exactly the proposed new name that was rejected at the July 1 CFD, in favour of the present name, with the intention that the siblings should be renamed likewise. That intention seemed to be maintained at the 13 July CFD, and they would all have been nominated for renaming by now if it were not for this contrary nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2011 (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.

Category:Boulevard Records 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * boulevard records albums


 * Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete if the label does not have an article there should not be a cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2011 (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.