Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 13



Category:Observing the Moon

 * 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, without prejudice to immediate re-nomination. Proposed actions include deletion, renaming to Category:Observation of the Moon or Category:Lunar observation, and upmerging to Category:Lunar science or Category:Observational astronomy. I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy to invite that project's attention to this category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Observing the Moon to Category:UNKNOWN
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Moon observation, Category:Observation of the Moon or Category:Lunar observation would look better as observation would serve as a good noun here imo. Brand meister talk   12:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Only one article actually has to do with lunar observation per se; another is a general article on astronomical observation, and the rest are on specific observed phenomena, many of which aren't specific to the moon. When pruned of the latter two groups this only have one, maybe two articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. Could be also upmerged to Category:Lunar science. Brand meister talk   13:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Observation of the Moon. I don't see why specific observations of the Moon should not be included in a category named Observations of the Moon, even if those observations would fit in other categories as well. Reyk  YO!  04:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Not to throw a wrench into the works, but Category:Lunar observation has a somewhat more common usage. There are 14,200 book ghits for "lunar observation" and 1,520 for "moon observation". Regards, RJH (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. Brand meister talk   15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Lunar science per Brandmeister. Seems a sensible correction. Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Observational astronomy as that's what this category really seems to be about. - jc37 01:34, 23 May 2012 (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:English Tour de France stage winners and Category:Scottish Tour de France stage winners

 * 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: upmerge both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:English Tour de France stage winners to Category:British Tour de France stage winners
 * Nominator's rationale: English nationality is not recognised in international cycling: they are registered as British. Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Scottish Tour de France stage winners to Category:British Tour de France stage winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Scottish nationality is not recognised in international cycling: they are registered as British. Kevin McE (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both - for a start, the nominator's statement is simply untrue: here is David Millar winning gold for Scotland in the world's 2nd biggest international multi-sport event after the Olympics. Secondly, Robert Millar is a member of the Scottish Sport Hall of Fame based purely on his Grand Tour performances. Thirdly, and crucially - because WP:VERIFY is official policy here at Wikipedia - "international cycling" does not exist in a vacuum: it exists in the context of real-world culture and society. In other words, a person does not cease to be a Scot or an Englishman or a Welshman just because they get on a bike rather than pick up a badminton racquet or kick a football. eg. David Millar's first TdF victory at Futuroscope was universally reported by major broadsheet and serious international media, and cycling media, as a victory by a Scot. Here is just a tiny fraction of the reliable ext refs: ESPN, Daily Telegraph, La Dépêche du Midi, L'Équipe, International Business Times, The Independent. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Appeal to WP:VERIFY is intriguing in this case: any results service reporting the Tour de France, which is the only cycling race relevant to this discussion (the Commonwealth Games have absolutely zero relevance here, and is incredibly insignificant in cycling terms; the main body for the sport in Scotland is a part of British Cycling, and there is no specific body for governing the sport in England alone; the UCI's results of the Commonwealth Games report Millar's nationality as GBR, and his team as SCO) there will be no mention of English or Scottish nationality, only of British. As to the point that "a person does not cease to be a Scot or an Englishman or a Welshman just because they get on a bike", while it is clearly true, it is utterly irrelevant. Bradley Wiggins (despite having been born in Belgium) does not cease to have a London background, and I find 330 Google hits for the phrase "Londoner Wiggins", but that is irrelevant to his Tour results.  When there were national teams, rather than trade teams, there was a GBR team, but never a specific English/Welsh team.  Being British is an integral element of the registration of riders and their listing in Tour de France documentation: being from a particular constituent country (or state for Americans, or province for Spaniards, etc etc) may be a matter of importance to the rider personally, and may be reported in the press (the same could be true of 27 year old Tour stage winners, or left handed tour stage winners, or Winners who were formerly a member of the HTC squad, or winners who have glamour models as girlfriends/wives), but is completely irrelevant to analysis or subdivision of Tour Stage winners.  A brief look at the user page of Mais oui! makes it evident that Scottish pride rather than analysis of cycling is key to his/her opinion on the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ho hum. The wee, throw-away ad-hominem at the end is right on parr for these daft "discussions". And we all know that the Admins will conveniently ignore WP:NPA if it is a Scottish editor being attacked. The pattern of disgrace continues unabatted. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing Admin, I have united the header for this nomination, as it is an identical rationale for each propsed merge. It would not be constructive to have 2 completely separate discussions regarding the same proposal. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep bothRafikiSykes (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge They compete as British cyclists in The Tour, not English, Scottish, etc.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Err... no they don't. There are zero national teams in the TdF. They ride for sponsor's teams, just like Formula 1. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Errr... yes they do. They do not ride for a national team (but some of those listed did in the 1960s, and that was a GB team), but any official listing (see letour.fr) has them as British.  If Wiggins/Miller win in July (stop giggling at the back) the union flag will be flown and GStQ will be played, not Jerusalem or Flower of Scotland.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep both. There are separate categories for English and Scottish cyclists. Cjc13 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge both – it is ridiculous to subcat the tiny Category:British Tour de France stage winners any further. (Contrast with Category:Tour de France winners, which is not subcatted by nationality at all.) The existence of separate categories for English and Scottish cyclists is irrelevant. Oculi (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not ridiculous in the least. The purpose of the cats is not to subcategorise the UK cat, but to subcat the respective English and Scottish cats, highlighting the cyclists that have reached the peak of their profession. (No UK cyclist has ever won, or even come close to winning the TdF.)--Mais oui! (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A stage win in the TdF, while undoubtedly a key element of any riders palmares, will not be considered peak of their profession by many road cyclists: it is not the only important race of the season. Kevin McE (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A cyclist that wins a stage in the TdF scores points for his nation for the UCI nation ranking. There is no "England" or "Scotland" in this nation ranking, but there is a "Great Britain". --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally perplexed (but merge both). We divide Tour de France stage winners by nationality?! Brzpw... But if we do, I guess I agree that merging to the more general nationality of "British" is a good idea, in light of nationality that is "recognised" in cycling. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a huge glaring breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, according total, 100% weight to a demonstrably incompetent bunch of sports administrators at Ch. de la Mêlée 12, 1860 Aigle, Switzerland. WP:VERIFY - which is official policy here at Wikipedia - requires that we encompass a broad range of reliable external sources and do not present only one POV. Millar and Millar and their English colleagues demonstrably have 2 nationalities: Scottish/English and British (as accurately reflected by these Scottish and English TdF winners' cats being subcats of the British one). This has already been demonstrated by my links to several reliable ext refs above, and I can easily provide hundreds more. If David Millar is (correctly) described as a Scot by the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and their colleagues worldwide then Wikipedia has no authority to simply erase that nationality. WP:VERIFY is not optional: we are actually bound to reflect the big real world out there. If User:Oculi finds it "ridiculous" that the BBC call eg. Millar a Scot, then he should take his complaint to the BBC, not denigrate the work of a fellow editor in such an out-of-hand and ill-informed manner. What is "ridiculous" is that an adult who is supposed to be reasonably intelligent can believe that an administrative office in Switzerland can somehow determine an English or a Scottish person's nationality. We all know that they cannot. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it's clear you disagree with my opinion and believe passionately about this particular issue, but I'm in general agreement with Kevin McE's points throughout this discussion. He has made out a strong case in favour of the merge, from my viewpoint. There are ways to justify the opinion without committing "glaring breaches" of WP guidelines. It would be good to keep that in mind before you accuse others of committing such breaches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFY, WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) and WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR) are not "WP guidelines", they are official WP policy. As you well know, there is a huge difference between our guidelines and our policies. CFD has every right to ignore our guidelines to its heart's content. However, CFD has zero authority to ignore official policy. It is a wp:verifiable fact that TdF victories by Scots are reported to the planet as exactly that: TdF victories by Scots. Therefore, Category:Scottish Tour de France stage winners is a category solidly grounded in the most cherished Wikipedia policy of all: existence in the big real world.
 * Kevin McE's "points" (a very apt word by the way) are flimsy to non-existant: he starts with a great whopping fib ("Scottish nationality is not recognised in international cycling"), which, when pointed out to him, he defends by citing the UCI (his only reliable ext ref by the way, compared to the hundreds of others available). The UCI has zero say over the Commonwealth Games, which is run by the Commonwealth Games Federation (and he subsequently has the cheek to point out that the TdF is run by ASO, not the UCI).
 * I did not dignify Kevin McE's "points" with a reply last week because I was absolutely furious with yet another breach of Wikipedia official policy: WP:NPA, namely the passage: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views... ". Any Admin worth their salt would have removed the personal attack and admonished the deliverer, however I have been editing on Wikipedia long enough to know that anyone can Jock-bash till the cows come home, and no Admin will even raise an eyebrow.
 * In summary, this entire CFD "discussion stinks to high heaven, from beginning to end. If we had a neutral, uppstanding closing Admin then the "decision" (pretty much a foregone conclusion around here) would be Keep, citing official policy WP:VERIFY. Needless to say, I am not holding my breath.--Mais oui! (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are over-reacting to some degree. The particular issue being discussed is one for which I believe there can easily be a divergence of opinion. Just because we disagree does not mean that one side or the other is violating guidelines and policies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "a divergence of opinion." -> that is my very point. Wikipedia explicitly forbids advocacy. That is why WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR exist: to ground the entire project in the big, real world out there, not in the mind-bogglingly retarded world of "I think this" and "I think that" which dominates so many "discussions" at Wikipedia, and especially here at CFD. This entire "discussion" is a massive wall of "we think this" versus the solid projectile of truth represented by the corpus of reliable external sources. Just because British nationalist Wikipedians outnumber Scottish Wikipedians does not mean that the British nationalist ones are better or wiser editors, and that is also why everything we do, including categorisation, must be grounded in real-world sources. Otherwise the loudest POVers can always "win", irrespective of the real-world situation.--Mais oui! (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By "divergence of opinion" I merely meant a different interpretation of the guidelines and policies as they apply to this case. It is possible to disagree with your proposed application of these, you know. I have found it to be a good policy to acknowledge that my own interpretation is not necessarily the only correct one. I haven't yet come across anyone in my life who is infallible—but perhaps you are the one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to policy as if the policy is obviously agreeing to your viewpoint. It is not. WP:VERIFY: Take David Millar as an example. The Tour de France website says he is British. So does the UCI. Specialized cycling websites: cyclingnews, cycling archives. I'm sure an article about Millar will mention he is Scottish, that's why we should also put it in the prose of his article. But it is clear that race results show him to be British, so we should follow the sources. These categories come from race results, so it follows that the 'British stage winners' category is best. If we go for the 'Scottish' and 'English' solution, we put undue weight on these (sub)nationalities. Furthermore, it there is anybody breaching WP:SYNTH in this discussion, it is you: you know he is a stage winner in the Tour de France, and that he is Scottish, so you combine these facts to make him a 'Scottish stage winner'. This combination is not found in the race result sources.
 * You have one argument that I honestly don't understand. You bring up the Commonwealth Games. Why? If the category for discussion were 'Scottish stage winners in the Commonwealth Games', it would be a valid, convincing argument. But it is not about the commonwealth games...--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I really didn't think this "discussion" could sink any lower, but it just has. Apparently my nation is not a nation. It is a subnation. Contrary to the verifiable evidence. I must therefore be a subperson. Further evidence, as if more were needed, that pretty much nobody ever learns anything from history.
 * Please note that at no point have I said that David Miller is not British. I have pointed out that he is verifiably both British and Scottish, and that this is accurately reflected by the Scottish subcat belonging to the British cat.
 * I brought up the Commonwealth Games because the nominator used a Rationale at the head of this "discussion" that was a plain, downright fib ("Scottish nationality is not recognised in international cycling"). And demonstrably so.
 * "This combination is not found in the race result sources" -> again, complete and utter nonsense. Respected, broadsheet media and the BBC etc reported Miller's Futuroscope win as a TdF stage win by a Scot (and a most stunning one, as everyone expected Armstrong to triumph that day). Those are verifiable race result sources. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering your enthusiasm for casting accusations of personal attacks (in relation to which see your talk page) †, one might hope that you would be more discerning in your accusations of telling lies. I have already pointed out that there is no internationally recognised separate national body for Scottish (or English/Welsh/Northern Irish/Manx) cycling, and that in the results of the Commonwealth Games, UK competitors had their nationality reported by the internationally authority for the sport as British. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * † I thought it would be more appropriate to ask Mais Oui at his talk page to defend his accusation of personal attack, but he twice deleted the request that he either justify or retract the accusation without the courtesy of a comment. Kevin McE (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mais Oui: your sources you gave at the beginning of this discussion support my point. I was talking about race results. Only two sources show results: the telegraph source says "D Millar (GB, Cofidis)", la depeche says "David Millar (GBR/COF)".
 * Millar is only mentioned being Scottish in the prose. Sure, that's where we should also put it, I am not denying that. But that's not his nationality that shows up in the results. There are many sources that say in prose that Lance Armstrong is Texan, that Tom Boonen is Flemish and (probably) that Aitor González is Basque. Still, in the results they are always reported as American, Belgian and Spanish, so we report them as American stage winners, Belgian stage winners and Spanish stage winners. From a political and historical point of view, these cases are completely different, but from a cycling point of view, they are exactly the same. Blame the UCI if you want, but that's just the way it is.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are just making this up as you go along. Now you contend that race results reported in prose-style somehow fail WP:VERIFY, but race results reported in list-style somehow satisfy WP:VERIFY. Where exactly in our official policy documents did you pick up that gem?--Mais oui! (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying at all. Please keep this discussion mature, and reply to the arguments that were actually used by your discussion partners.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 05:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For UK sportspeople, there is a need to identify which level of national identity is relevant. In some sports, the constituent country nationality is relevant, because that is the unit that participates internationally in the main international events (eg Football, Rugby, Cricket); in others, largely those that did not have much of their formative history in these islands, the highest level of international participation is under the banner that covers the whole of the UK, and the usual adjective applied (unfortunately, IMHO) is British: the Engl/Scottishness of the individual is not removed, but is irrelevant.  The latter group of sports includes cycling.  And incidentally, the Tour de France, the only event relevant to these categories, is not run by the UCI, but by ASO. Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge both, I already gave my arguments above.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge both to the definition that, as far as I can tell in the above hog's breakfast of a discussion, is actually used in the sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The definitions actually used in the sources are both Scottish and British. No-one has even contended otherwise (for the obvious reason that it is very easy to prove). --Mais oui! (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2012 (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:Greek Orthodox churches in Utah

 * 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: do not rename, with no prejudice against a follow-up proposal to upmerge the category (though I note that Category:Greek Orthodox churches in the United States contains several single-member subcategories). I suggest placing the 'church'/'church buildings' issue on hold until a wider consensus is reached, either at CfD or RfC. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Greek Orthodox churches in Utah to Category:Greek Orthodox church buildings in Utah
 * Nominator's rationale The one article in this category at present is a Cathedral. Thus it is a place that is noted because of the building it is.  It is the main building of a Diocese.  In The Greek Orthodox Church a "Church" might mean a diocese, but parish is clearly the right word for the local organizations.  The content of this category are and will probably always be Church buildings and we should designate them as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Propose moratorium, pending an RFC. I supported some of the CfDs which renamed these categories to the "church buildings" format, but am now neutral on the subject because it is clear that the result has not produced a stable consensus. There are good arguments on both sides of this debate, and no easy solution is in sight ... so I suggest that the best way forward is to close any CfDs on churches and their buildings and have a wider discussion at an RFC. It is clear so far that the process of having a series of individual discussions is not leading to consistent or stable outcomes, and the result is unhelpful to both readers and editors. An RFC provides an opportunity to clarify the the issues and lay the basis for a solution which which takes the controversy out of these discussions. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly this one ought to be resolved according to the outcome of Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12. There's no cause for a separate discussion. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the responses above but, as the nominated category has only one member, upmerge to both parents instead of naming it either way. – Fayenatic L ondon (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not only is it annoying to have nominated this single category in the midst of other discussions about the whole hierarchy, but contrary to the nominator's assertion, the notability of the one article in the category is not based solely on the size and architecture of building. The one article was one of those infernal NRHP stubs that has minimal content and is solely focused on the building. I ran a quick Google search and found some good material to expand the article with. It now has content about more than the building. --Orlady (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Mangoe. Disruptive to have this running in parallel Ephebi (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2012 (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.