Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 29



Hymns

 * 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, without prejudice to re-creation if needed to house non-Christian hymns of a particular nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Swedish hymns to Category:Swedish Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Polish hymns to Category:Polish Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Latin hymns to Category:Latin Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Italian hymns to Category:Italian Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Irish hymns to Category:Irish Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:German hymns to Category:German Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:French hymns to Category:French Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Dutch hymns to Category:Dutch Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Danish hymns to Category:Danish Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Canadian hymns to Category:Canadian Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Welsh hymns to Category:Welsh Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:Scottish hymns to Category:Scottish Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:English hymns to Category:English Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:British hymns to Category:British Christian hymns
 * Propose renaming Category:American hymns to Category:American Christian hymns
 * Nominator's rationale: Not all hymns are Christian. I'm pretty sure all the hymns in these categories are. -- JFH (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename – these are all subcats of Category:Christian hymns and should use the same naming convention. (There is also Category:Hymns which is not as yet subcatted by country.) Oculi (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename because they are subcategories of "Christian hymns". Review member articles; some are definitely not Christian. Alternatively, leave as is and remove from Category:Christian hymns. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * comment This categorization is defective; it's a mixture of language and national categorizations, so that it's not at all clear where a lot of hymns should fit in it. Is Adeste Fideles Latin, or English, or British? Or Portuguese? Is the Benedicite Latin or Greek? (It's categorized as English, BTW.) Blazhen Muzh is categorized as English even though it's in Church Slavonic (though presumably it has a Greek antecedent). The renaming makes all of this more obscure, because "English Christian hymns" could be written by English Christians, or by written in English by Christians anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They should first be by country of origin like . I would support a rename for Latin to Latin-language. In my mind, hymns with notable translations should be in both categories. -JFH (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All national categories heirarchies are defective when considering the ambiguity in the naming, as ethnic groups and languages with the same names exist. It would be better if they were clearly indicated for this purpose by stating "national" or using the noun form (ie. Category:Christian hymns of the Scotland, Category:Latin-language Christian hymns , Category:Ethnic Greek Christian hymns ) Using noun-form country names is especially important since several countries share the same demonyms (ie. Congo (not Zaire) & Congo (Zaire), Niger & Nigeria, etc). -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like something that should be taken up at the much more developed tree (better yet, ). This one should follow suit. --JFH (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename in principle -- In most cases, these are hymns by language. Benedicite is strictly a canticle, rather than a hymn, but that does not matter.  The article is correctly both under Latin hymns and English hymns, befcasue the article (a poor one) gives English translations.  I am not sure how to deal with the English/Scottish distinction, as these are both about the English language, despite differing church traditions.  I assume the Welsh category is about Welsh language hymns (though I have not checked .  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the intention is for these to be country categories except Latin. Language categories would be "English-language" etc. See and . --JFH (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hymns are texts, not songs. (So are the canticles, for that matter.) They don't have to be sung. A lot of hymns are sung to tunes of different national origins, often shared with other texts; when you piece together a Latin text with an American translation that's typically (but not always) sung to a German tune, where does it come from? The whole implicit thesis that writing hymns is like writing pop songs is wrong. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hymns are songs by the most common definitions, including our article. But even if they weren't, all texts have national origins just as songs do (see or ). For the example you gave, it goes in a Latin-language cat, and if the country where the Latin original was composed can be identified we can cat it that way too. It can be catted American if the translation is discussed in the article. As for the tune issue, this is a problem because tunes are usually considered distinct from hymn texts. But right now we have very few articles on hymn tunes on their own. I don't see a problem with catting a hymn which is usually sung to a German tune in a German hymn cat as well as the other cats. --JFH (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That we give a misleading definition of "hymn" is a different problem, but at any rate, I think the national origin claim is mostly untrue. All of the German examples, for instance, are included there not because they were written in Germany (which did not then exist) but because they were all written originally in German (I suspect because they're mostly early Lutheran works), although examples where the translation is the name of the article are categorized by the translator. Likewise the Welsh category is for texts originally written in that language, even though one member was written in the US. The Irish examples are also a mess because there's no indication that in their original forms, they were meant to be sung. The American/Canadian/English/Scottish subdivisions cut across all this.


 * I don't think the intentions here are very clear at all. My guess is that a substantial majority of these hymns are noted here because they are widely sung in English translation; therefore all the Lutheran hymns are likely to be "English hymns" because the principal translator (Catherine Winkworth) lived in England. Blazhen Muzh is American because the American Orthodox did the translation; for the same reason the Latin ones are all over the map (literally) because almost all of them were translated at some point by Thomas Cranmer or some other Englishman or American. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Further comment --I am standing by my vote above. However I have investigated further than I did before.  Some of the non-English language categories are for hymns in English with a particular ethnic origin: the Dutch category has one hymn in English, popular in Dutch-tradition churches and translated from Dutch.  The Irish category is also of this nature.  However the Welsh and German categories are for (or include) articles with titles in those languages.  English/American seems to depend on ther ethnicity of the author (lyricist).  On reflection, I think the best solution is to leave well alone the question of how to determine the ethnicity of a hymn.  It is frequently best with ethnic categories not to enquire too deeply into precisely how the ethnicity is to be determined.  Attempts at over-precision lead to too many snall categories and argumetns over semantics.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2014 (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:Cleveland Stars players

 * 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 Category:Cleveland Stars players to Category:Cleveland Cobras players. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Cleveland Stars players to Category:Cleveland Cobras players
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same franchise. WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete - traditionally one franchise/team has one category, plenty of CFD consensus for this. GiantSnowman 07:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge -- One franchise - one category, despite renaming or changing host league. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the alleged consensus referred to above is non-existent. Different names or different cities for the same franchise get separate categories: (e.g. Category:Oakland Raiders players vs. Category:Los Angeles Raiders players - same franchise different location; and Category:Tennessee Oilers players vs. Category:Tennessee Titans players - same franchise different name). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per User:Carlossuarez46. I deal almost exclusively with sports on Wikipedia and for categories, players are categorized by who they played for by that team's historical name. A good example is Kevin Durant: he played for the Seattle SuperSonics before they relocated (same franchise, shared team history, but different name/city) and he also played for the Oklahoma City Thunder. Therefore, he is correctly categorized in both Category:Seattle SuperSonics players and Category:Oklahoma City Thunder players. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is consensus on WP:FOOTY that one franchise/team should have one category (except if they relocate). See discussion. – Michael (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree that we should adopt the convention that if only the name changes (with no city relocation), we should just have one category. If the team relocates, then I can understand having separate categories, but here—it's just an arbitrary name change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the consensus mentioned is for soccer teams only; other sports are therefore irrelevant. The consensus can be found at CFD, including this very recent discussion. GiantSnowman 11:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge When teams change name, we keep them together. It is a different story when the team moves location.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2014 (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:Railway stations in Palnadu

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting railway stations in palnadu


 * Nominator's rationale: it is a small area in Guntur district, for railways a district itself is a small area compared to whole country, hence pages under these are easily fitted in Guntur district as it is a part of Gutnur district Vin09 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There aren't any articles left in this category. How are we supposed to discuss? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, it needs to be proposed for deletion?--Vin09 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The procedure is to first have a discussion while the articles are still there. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to judge whether a delete is appropriate or not. For anyone interested in this topic, there's three railways stations that are now in Category:Railway stations in Guntur district which formerly belonged to Category:Railway stations in Palnadu. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Palnadu is a small region in Guntur district, so it is asubset of it, which inturn is a sub set of the state of Andhra Pradesh under Guntur railway division. so, keeping the 3 stations in Guntur district would be appropriate.--Vin09 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support delete after having read the article about Palnadu which indeed reads like it's not a region notable enough for this kind of categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (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:People from Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania

 * 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) 02:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Crawford County, Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Community with just 1 entry. ...William 16:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support For this category and other similar children – there are quite a few small categories in that parent (8 for 16 people). These are not useful for finding related articles and especially so when potential parents like Category:Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania are non-existent. SFB 18:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:00, 1 August 2014 (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:People from Saegertown, Pennsylvania

 * 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) 02:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Saegertown, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Crawford County, Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with only 2 entries. ...William 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 04:00, 1 August 2014 (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:Guntur Coast

 * 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; redirect left. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Guntur Coast to Category:Guntur district
 * Nominator's rationale: it is purely a page in guntur district, no need of category Vin09 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Small cat for a stub article. Potential children are also unclear. SFB 18:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, shall I nominate it for deletion?--Vin09 (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The one article is already in parentCategory:Guntur district, so in this case upmerging and deleting are the same. No need to change the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * redirected page and merged the categories. the discussion can be closed.--Vin09 (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI - The usual procedure is to let the open discussion take it's course. Then, an admin will assess the discussion and close as appropriate. Nominators should not undertake action mid-discussion as this makes it difficult for other people to assess the category and contribute their opinion. SFB 17:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not know about that, as this is the first time I participated in category related discussion, I reverted it back, let the discussion continue.--Vin09 (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2014 (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.