Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 4



World Rugby

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:International Rugby Board to Category:World Rugby
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Awards to Category:World Rugby Awards
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Awards winners to Category:World Rugby Awards winners
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Committee members to Category:World Rugby Committee members
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Hall of Fame inductees to Category:World Rugby Hall of Fame inductees
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Players of the Year to Category:World Rugby Players of the Year
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Junior World Championship to Category:World Rugby Under 20 Championship
 * Propose renaming Category:IRB Junior World Rugby Trophy to Category:World Rugby Under 20 Trophy
 * Propose renaming Category:International Rugby Board competitions to Category:World Rugby competitions
 * Propose renaming Category:International Rugby Board members to Category:World Rugby members
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The International Rugby Board (IRB) was renamed World Rugby in November 2014. Bbb2007 (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per organisation rebrand and main article World Rugby. Also support renaming of junior competitions per recent changes shown here. SFB 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with Comment is World Rugby clear as a category ? Do we need Category:World Rugby (Organisation)  or would a note in the category it self be OK?  Gnevin (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it clear enough, mainly because we don't have any top level category structure for topics that goes by the form "Category:World X". SFB 03:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with Comment Should International Rugby Board member category be replaced with Category:World Rugby member oganisations or even Category:World Rugby member unions (World Rugby refers to these affiliated national sporting associations as "member unions"). Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 12:15, 28 January 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.

Radio dramas

 * 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. The category restructures can be done outside of CfD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Radio plays to Category:Radio dramas
 * Propose restructuring Category:Audio plays to be parent of Category:Radio dramas
 * Propose restructuring Category:Audio plays by year to be parent of Category:Radio dramas by year
 * Propose renaming Category:BBC Radio plays to Category:BBC Radio dramas
 * Propose renaming Category:BBC radio drama directors to Category:BBC Radio drama directors, to match BBC Radio


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename Category:Radio plays to match main article Radio drama. "Dramas" is a better word than "plays", as it covers long-running programs.
 * Although the main article starts "Radio drama (or audio drama, audio play, radio play, radio theater) is a dramatized, purely acoustic performance, broadcast on radio or published on audio media, such as tape or CD", it becomes clear that not all audio dramas are actually broadcast on radio. Therefore audio dramas should not all be categorised within the hierarchy of Radio or Category:Radio programs, but only Radio dramas; and Category:Audio plays should become a parent category of Radio dramas.
 * In case anyone thinks that all audio plays should be merged with radio plays/dramas, consider the extensive Category:Audio plays based on Doctor Who, of which only a small minority have been broadcast; these are sub-categorised within Category:Radio plays based on Doctor Who. Some might suggest listifying that last category, but it belongs within Category:Radio programs based on works and Category:Science fiction radio programs – unlike all the other audio plays. I believe this illustrates the need to keep Category:Audio plays and restructure it as a parent category, within Drama but outside the Radio hierarchy.
 * We might also want to rename all the many "Audio plays" categories to "Audio dramas", but let's leave that until after this discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Question are all "plays" dramas? just because they are on the radio? Some plays I assumed were comedies, farces, mysteries, musicals, operas, and other genres... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing. In a non-radio context, I see dramas as a type of play. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia categories it is the other way round, i.e. plays are a type of drama. Category:Plays has always been a sub-cat of Category:Drama. This makes sense as radio soaps are radio drama but not plays. Category:Plays by genre includes melodramas but there is no Category:Dramas. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support on the basis that all the content at present relates to radio dramas. However, I think the distinction should be made that not all such plays are dramas. Radio comedy plays are a particularly common type as well. The description and structure of Category:Audio plays should be changed to distinguish this. Then we should have categories by medium (e.g. radio, podcast) and categories by genre (e.g. drama, comedy etc). SFB 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted above, "drama" here is not to be read as a genre. There are intersections of medium and genre, e.g. Category:Radio programs by genre, but I don't think we want to create such fine intersections as radio comedy plays; they can be categorised as radio plays and as comedy radio programs. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the term "drama" is better understood with editors that deal a lot with media/cultural articles than it someone like me? RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps Category:Radio plays is fine, but needs a new parent Category:Radio dramas which would also hold radio soaps such as Category:British radio soap operas. In that case, "audio plays" could be kept as a parent of "radio plays", but "audio dramas" would be better as the overarching parent, and we probably don't need both "audio dramas" and "audio plays". Most of what are currently called "audio plays" would be better named "audio dramas" due to their long duration. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think where the confusion lies may be in international naming of things, but I'm not positive. Also, radio format is different than "genre of fiction presented on radio".
 * Fiction presented on radio is almost always in the form of a play. In that parts are read from a script (or partially or fully ad libbed). So that's why radio play is the top category. under that we can split by genre, such as drama, comedy, children's etc., with "soap" in most cases being a subcat of drama.
 * Radio play shouldn't be rediected to radio drama. if for no other reason than articles like radio comedy exist. maybe we need an overview page for radio play to help clarify all this... - jc37 17:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What about radio comedies? - Everyone above makes a great point. There are more kinds of plays than merely dramas, and we really shouldn't be even trying to split these by genre. So I Oppose arbitrarily renaming "plays" to "dramas", but support the rest. - jc37 06:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Fayenatic nails a good solution to a complicated problem. gidonb (talk) 11:12, 12 April 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.

Category:People who are namesakes of streets in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 * 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) 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people who are namesakes of streets in halifax, nova scotia


 * Nominator's rationale: I don't believe there is enough of a direct connection to not run afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – this runs afoul of much more than WP:SHAREDNAME. (Interesting to see a siege in there.) Oculi (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * True, WP:OCASSOC and WP:TRIVIALCAT may well apply here, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This feels a lot like WP:OCAWARD where we overcategorize people by honors they've received, like having a road named after them. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NON-DEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. kennethaw88 • talk 23:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a defining characteristic of the people in question. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 8 January 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.

Anti-Xxx sentiment categories and some Persecution of ... categories

 * 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 - jc37 20:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

While still hoping for comments from regulars to this page, I will also ping project members as follows: Roxmysoxo Keith D. Tyler  Ezeu Liftarn Malik Shabazz Shruti14 Cailil Kootenayvolcano Addhoc Tiamut  Laualoha  futurebird lquilter  Cdogsimmons  Timeshifter  BillyJack193  Wallie  Gold1618    Lilleskvat       Antidiskriminator    alf laylah wa laylah    jeanygina AlyHillary Bali88 User:MarkBernstein      GregKaye 17:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Asian sentiment to Category:Anti-Asian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Asian sentiment in Canada‎ to Category:Anti-Asian discrimination in Canada‎
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-British sentiment to Category:Anti-British discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Bulgarian sentiment to Category:Anti-Bulgarian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment to Category:Anti-Chinese discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-German sentiment to Category:Anti-German discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Hungarian sentiment to Category:Anti-Hungarian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Indian sentiment to Category:Anti-Indian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment to Category:Anti-Japanese discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Korean sentiment to Category:Anti-Korean discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Pakistan sentiment to Category:Anti-Pakistan discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Polish sentiment to Category:Anti-Polish discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Quebec sentiment to Category:Anti-Quebec discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Romanian sentiment to Category:Anti-Romanian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Russian sentiment to Category:Anti-Russian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Serbian sentiment to Category:Anti-Serbian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment to Category:Anti-Ukrainian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-Western sentiment to Category:Anti-Western discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Persecution of Assyrians to Category:Anti-Assyrian discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís to Category:Anti-Bahá'í discrimination
 * Propose renaming Category:Persecution of Yazidis‎ to Category:Anti-Yazidi discrimination
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Discrimination is the term with the broadest scope with the result that discrimination designated categories will have the widest range of application.  Discrimination can range from an a mild discriminatory dislike of a type of people that might result in a slightly lower tendency to smile to a level of hatred and disregard that leads to massacres.  There is nothing sentimental about the latter type of event.  In several cases there are articles with titles reading "Anti-Xxx sentiment" but these fit can all fit neatly into categories described with the catch all term discrimination.  The main category in regard to the topic is: Category talk:Prejudice and discrimination but, arguably, prejudice (prejudgement) is a subset and manifestation of discrimination.  The categories structure also contains several articles and categories entitled "Persecution of Xxx" and, in the new structure, these articles and categories would more naturally fit within the bounds of a related discrimination designated parent category.  The related Wikiproject is WikiProject Discrimination.


 * Oppose changing the "sentiments" categories to "discrimination". Since many of these already match the name of the relevant main article, as noted, I would prefer the category names to simply match the article name, as per usual practice. Also, the sentiment (or attitude) must by definition come before any discrimination occurs (otherwise it is not discrimination), so I think the current names are actually broader and thus more appropriate. A sentiment can be pervasive in a society without any actual discrimination occurring. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Sentiment is about an attitude. Discrimination is an action that may result from it.  They are not hte same.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good Ol’factory Peterkingiron Then what is the solution? Do we have second categories on "Anti-Xxx discrimination" topics as well? When a group like the Yazidis get massacred then this fits under discrimination.  Sentiment does not cut it.  Any positive or negative form or sentiment is a form of discrimination.  A person concerned is discriminating in regard to a viewpoint taken on a person or thing.  GregKaye 16:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sentiment" is not necessarily "discrimination"—the former is considerably broader than the latter. Sentiment is a feeling or attitude. Often, the sentiment can lead to actions which constitute discrimination, but it doesn't always do so. For there to be discrimination, there has to be an action, not just a feeling or attitude. Therefore, because sentiment is broader than discrimination, any discrimination can be legitimately placed in the sentiment category. I agree that "sentiment" can be a bit of an unusual word to use when severe acts of discrimination are committed, but it does prevent us from having two separate category schemes where we divide discrimination from mere sentiments. I don't think we need both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Alt rename to the form "Anti-Fooian sentiment". The broader term of sentiment rather than the action-specific "discrimination" helps us group this material better. To take Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Canada as an example, Ha Ling Peak and In the Sea of Sterile Mountains are not forms of discrimination, but topics that cover general sentiment and issues relating to Chinese people in Canada. I'm unsure whether the Category:Persecution tree is a suitable topic to fold into this on the same basis. SFB 22:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename I think we want to go with a more clearly defined term. I also think we need to consider whether biographical aritcles should be in these categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename sentiment is a feeling, while discrimination is more clearly defined.--Loomspicker (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as noted above, there are some articles in these categories about particular sentiments towards people that don't amount to discrimination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Just looking at the Chinese section, not all the things there are discrimination. Some deal with terms that are negative, but not inherently linked to discrimination. Others deal more with actions taken to lessen Chinese cultural influence in other parts of East and South-east Asia, which do not always involve discrimination either. Some other articles on other topics will likewise cover expessions that are against a certain topic on an intellectual level and not really count as discrimination. We have articles on some of these things, and grouping them in this way is useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 6 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.

Category:Sri Lankan people of World War I

 * 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; leave redirect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Sri Lankan people of World War I to Category:Ceylonese people of World War I
 * Nominator's rationale: Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon before 1972. obi2canibe talk contr 16:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support merge and leave as redirect to avoid further confusion, which seems likely as a common anachronistic mistake. SFB 22:23, 6 January 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.

Pentecostal minister categories

 * 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 action--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pentecostal pastors to Category:Pentecostal ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:American Pentecostal pastors to Category:American Pentecostal ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:Australian Pentecostal pastors to Category:Australian Pentecostal ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:Swedish Pentecostal pastors to Category:Swedish Pentecostal ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:Assemblies of God pastors to Category:Assemblies of God ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:Assemblies of God pastors by nationality to Category:Assemblies of God ministers by nationality
 * Propose renaming Category:American Assemblies of God pastors to Category:American Assemblies of God ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:New Zealand Assemblies of God pastors to Category:New Zealand Assemblies of God ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:Samoan Assemblies of God pastors to Category:Samoan Assemblies of God ministers
 * Propose renaming Category:Church of God in Christ pastors to Category:Church of God in Christ ministers
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Pentecostal churches, pastor refers to an ordained minister who leads or "shepherds" a congregation or subset of a congregation (such as youth pastor). The term excludes certified, licensed, and ordained ministers who do not pastor churches, such as theologians, evangelists, and missionaries. Ltwin (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as "pastor" is therefore a WP:DEFINING role, whereas the broader term "minister" is not. That is why we renamed Pentecostal clergy to "pastors" rather than "ministers" a year ago, see Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 16. There is already Category:Pentecostal theologians, so please create sibling categories Category:Pentecostal evangelists and Category:Pentecostal missionaries. I have just set up Category:Pentecostal religious workers following the pattern set at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 28, and this may provide the broader category that you were looking for. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So while religious leaders in other comparable Protestant traditions (such as Category:Baptist ministers) on Wikipedia are organized in inclusive categories like "minister" and "clergy", Pentecostalism alone must not have a simple clergy category? This just doesn't make sense to me. Before the November 2014 discussion, there was a Category: Pentecostal clergy and, in my opinion, it worked quite well. Ltwin (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Baptists and Methodists mostly use "minister" for the person who leads/shepherds the congregation (although some Baptists also use "pastor" to mean the exact same thing). No denomination should be categorising people by roles that are not defining. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the normal term in these denominations is "pastor". That is not reaon why the parent should not be a category of "ministers" or "clergy".  However, if I wanted to be pedantic, clergy is clerks in holy orders, which applies to Anglicans.  Non-conformists are "ministers of religion".  The world is complicated and will not fit precvisely into WP boxes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is with the assertion that Pentecostals only use the term "pastor" and never "minister." The "normal" terminology in Pentecostal churches is to use "minister" for clergy in general, whether they are pastors or not. For the record, I'm a lifelong Pentecostal, so I speak from experience. For example, the Assemblies of God has a Ministers Directory rather than a "Pastors Directory" and publishes an Minister's Letter and requires Minister's Dues and issues Ministerial Credentials. Ltwin (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a different argument from the one in your nomination, and appears to contradict it, but perhaps refers only to AoG. Are these documents for the shepherds rather than the broader category? In that case it would be right to rename the AoG category from pastors to ministers, just as there are exceptions within the Methodist categories (immediately below last year's CfD linked above). I understand that "pastor" is the usual term among Pentecostals in the UK at least. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To specifically answer your question, the AG in the US does not have any ministerial status known as "pastor". This is a role and title given to some but not all ministers: "Three classifications of ministry are recognized and transferable among all Assemblies of God districts: the ordained minister, the licensed minister, and the certified minister." (see p. 121 of AG Constitution and Bylaws).
 * I don't think it contradicts my original argument at all. A Minister is someone officially set apart through licensure and/or ordination to perform full time ministry. "Pastor" is a role that ministers perform. Not all Ministers pastor. Some Ministers teach in theological institutions. Other ministers perform evangelistic (and in modern times televangelism) and/or healing ministries. However, no matter what role one is currently performing, they are all Ministers.
 * I won't claim to know how language is used everywhere in the world, but the Assemblies of God in Great Britain's website uses both "pastor" and "senior minister" when speaking of a minister in charge of a church and "minister" when speaking of clergy in general:
 * An AoG Minister is a person of exemplary character and good reputation, living a biblical and Spirit-filled life. He/She possesses a conviction about their divine calling to ministry which is acknowledged and endorsed by AoG Leadership. They are committed to the Statement of Faith, core values and the relevant training requirements, while working relationally with AoG apostolic leadership.
 * See also the AOG Britain's information for ministerial training, which speaks of "Full Ministerial Status" and "Probationary Minister status". Likewise, the Australian Christian Churches recognizes [the following categories (p. 12 of pdf) of clergy: Ordained Minister, Provisional Minister, Specialized Ministry Credential, and Overseas Associate Minister. Ltwin (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: for info, the wider plan here is to get rid of the duplication of layers for religious leaders and clergy, see Category talk:Religious leaders. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment -- I would not assert that Pentecostals never use "minister", only "pastor", but that pastor is the more common term. Equally, Baptists, Methodists, etc more usually use "minister", rather than "pastor".  It would not surprise me if usage differs from one country to another.  We do not have sibling Pentecostal categories, making it necessary to split the Pentecostals according to whether they are ministers or pastors (which is clearly impossible, or at best a POV issue).  I am suggesting that Pentecostal pastors and Baptist ministers should both be subcategories of Protestant clergy by denomination (or something of that kind).  If AoG prefer the term minister (and this is probably only in formal contexts - not common usage), AoG ministers could be a subcateogry of Pentecostal pastors, but that is a discussion for another day.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with a category for Pentecostal ministers with a subcategory for pastors, evangelists, etc. My problem is that right now there is no category that all Pentecostal clergy can fit into as exists for every other Christian denomination on Wikipedia. Persons who are ordained ministers but not pastors, such as Gordon Fee and Stanley M. Horton, can't be categorized as clergy. Ltwin (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Fee and Horton are both categorised as Category:Pentecostal theologians, which is in Category:Pentecostal religious workers (created after this nomination, as stated above) – that provides the common category in common with other denominations. "Clergy" is ambiguous and unnecesary; several denominations' "clergy" categories have been merged into the equivalent pastor-level (religious leader) category already. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't a solution. A lay person can be a theologian. Both Fee and Horton are ordained ministers, but they cannot be categorized as such because the category they would have fallen into has been renamed to a more specific category. Ltwin (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are any members Category:Pentecostal theologians not ordained ministers? I would have expected lay Pentecostal authors to be categorised in Category:Pentecostal writers rather than "theologians".
 * I would be happy to re-create "Pentecostal minsters" as a category disambiguation page for Pentecostal pastors and theologians. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not mind having the pastor category be a subcategory of a broader ministry category. We do need a ministry category for Pentecostal ministers who don't fit nicely into the "pastoral" role. While I can't say for sure because I do not know anything about him other than what I've found online, no source identifies Rickie D. Moore as an ordained minister. He is by any standard a recognized theologian and currently the chair of the Department of Theology at Lee University, and it would be unusual for his ministerial status to be omitted.
 * Then of course we have cases like Hermano Pablo who was ordained with the Assemblies of God but never pastored. He was a radio evangelist, yet he was still was an ordained minister like all AG pastors. He's now in the Assemblies of God pastors category. Ltwin (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a citation for Moore's ordination. Pablo should be re categorised as Pentecostal evangelist or missionary.
 * It seems to me that what we should categorise by is not whether someone was ordained (i.e. Clergy/minister), but what they do with that recognition, whether leading a congregation, teaching theology, or mission. As there are no pages for people who do not fit into the more detailed categories, we don't need the ambiguous category "ministers" as well. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize however that all other Christian denominations retain a category that describes general clergy/minister except Pentecostalism. So, while its all fine and good for you to want Wikipedia to categorize on the basis of what a person does with their ministerial recognition, as it stands currently, Wikipedia only expects that when it comes to Pentecostalism. Other Christian clergy are clearly categorized as clergy or minister (both non-specific terms) instead of specific roles such as pastor. Ltwin (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all other denominations have one, and I hope those that remain are on the way out. See longer reply below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Category:Pentecostal religious workers is a good top level category, rather than the looser "ministers" which could provoke unwanted duplication of theologians, etc. I think the religious workers parent category types are very useful for this area and provide a clear and common structure to build from. SFB 22:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The requested change harmonizes to the terminology elsewhere in Wikipedia and aligns to the biblical designation of "pastors" as being the elders or presbyters of the local congregation. "Minister" is clearly the term most insulated from any particular doctrinal decision by any faith community within Christendom. Rammer (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rammer, where else in Wikipedia are you referring to? Also, please explain your second sentence. – Fayenatic London  L ondon 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Observe, Fayenatic London  L ondon, that the English Wikipedia article on the profession is titled Minister (Christianity). "Minister" is the term which all faith communities within Christendom can accept, unambiguously. To use "pastor" in that sense is in effect a doctrinal position, and Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to NPOV. Rammer (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That precisely illustrates the problem with the nomination. What is needed is a set of categories corresponding to the role of Minister (Christianity), leaders of congregations, across all denominations. However, in Pentecostalism or at least the AoG, the word Minister is used for ordained persons – who elsewhere would be called clergy – whether or not they serve as leaders of congregations. It is therefore more specific to use the word pastor, and this helps to achieve a tier of categories where the contents have a consistent role.
 * As for your second point, we do not force the use of uniform words in category names in contexts where such words are not used. For example, we are not going to rename Roman Catholic priests to "ministers".
 * If my proposal to merge the "clergy" tier is rejected, then it might be appropriate to insert a "Pentecostal ministers" layer as that denomination's word for clergy. However, that should not be done by renaming the category of local leaders to something ambiguous. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just don't think most editors are using the categories in the way you would like. We have a Category: Lutheran clergy even though a search for "Lutheran clergy" only gets 39,800 hits on google. "Lutheran priest" returns 45,000 results. Yet "Lutheran pastor" gets 351,000 results. Obviously, "pastor" is used more than "clergy" in relation to Lutheranism. "Pentecostal pastor" returns 102,000 results, and "Pentecostal minister" returns 76,000 results. Why does Lutheranism get a general clergy category, but Pentecostalism cannot have a comparable general ministry category? Or to phrase this a different way, why doesn't Lutheranism have to have a "pastors" category that excludes other ordained ministers? Ltwin (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lutheranism should have one as well. If you are referring to my proposal at Category talk:Religious leaders, I was wrongly assuming that Lutherans use "clergy" for its leaders; thanks to the evidence you have given, I will propose renaming its categories. However, it may be more difficult to remove the "clergy" layer for Roman Catholics, although I still intend to propose that as well. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose To try to harmonize across religious denomination when denominational structure and practice are different is unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would be "unwise" if Pentecostals did not use the term "minister" to describe their clergy, but, as I've demonstrated with sources, Pentecostals do use the term "minister". It is not necessary to use the restrictive term "pastor" when categorizing Pentecostal clergy when there is a better term available that no Pentecostal would object to. Ltwin (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - From what I am reading above, "pastors" categories (if they should even exist), should be subcats of "ministers". Or to put it another way: Apparently all pastors are ministers, but not all ministers are pastors. So, Ltwin, wouldn't the easier solution be to create "Minister" categories as parents to the "Pastor" cats, which could then also include all the other types the nom is concerned about? - jc37 21:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jc37, I wouldn't be opposed to that, but as this discussion shows, there are editors who feel that there shouldn't be any "minister" category at all. The reason I phrased my original proposal the way I did was that originally there was a "Pentecostal clergy" category, which functioned in much the same manner as you propose for a "minister category". This clergy category was renamed to the much more limited "pastor" category. So, my original proposal was just to fix the problem by renaming the category. Ltwin (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. And technically, the result should be to rename the categories from pastors to ministers, then split out the pastors into a subcat. But at this stage, just for ease of editing, just create the minister parent cats, and categorise appropriately. - jc37 14:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the request is really to make a distinction between ordination and occupation. In Roman Catholicism this distinction is being made naturally, because priests who become a theologian (occupation) still remain a priest (ordination). So I wouldn't find it strange to have the same distinction in Protestantism. In this particular case, it would imply the nomination not to go ahead, but instead to create new categories for ministers that are parent categories of pastors. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 29 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.

Category:Civil rights movement during the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration

 * 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 to Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Feel free to also upmerge to Category:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson at editorial discretion. - jc37 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose upmerging Category:Civil rights movement during the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge While I see that this category has been around since 2008, I don't understand why we would split a continuous movement into presidential terms. Certainly the Johnson era was a climactic one for the movement, I'm not disputing that, but should we categorize the African American civil rights movement by presidencies? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to the less specific Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). There is no category for any other president.  Purge if necessary.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep as is. This category is also/primarily  a subcat of Category:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson showing the events occurring during the course of his presidency and helped by his presidency.  The reason there are not such categories for other presidents is simple: Johnson's time is when the action took place.  There are only a few articles attached to other presidency categories, not enough for a category for them.  Hmains (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure what the actual association would be, for most of them, which are marches, riots, the Black Panther Party, the shooting of MLK, etc.There are several LBJ bills, though. So a purge if kept, surely, per Peterkingiron. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this some more, another way would be repurpose this as Johnson administration civil rights legislation, but that could be a violation of WP:SMALLCAT, as this is a small and very finite group. So we're left with a buncha stuff that either coincidentally happened during Johnson's six or so years in office following JFK's assassination, or was actually carried out by LBJ in one form or another. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for these US presidential categories includes events that occurred during the administration, not only those that were the result of administration actions. See various such categories. Hmains (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial Dual Upmerge Kerner Commission, All the Way (play) and the 3 civil rights acts should also go under Category:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. It's puzzling how some of the other articles belong under president Johnson though: Carpenters for Christmas doesn't even mention Johnson and the Black Panther Party was active for 13 years after he left office.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge This is largely categorisation through contemporaneous means, rather than a means of causation (which would be defining). As such, it's not really defining a feature as the president of the time has largely not been the way this history has been framed. It is framed in the broader civil rights movement which affected the society as a whole, not simply the president of the day. SFB 22:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge The Civil Rights movement is thought of as a unified whole, and it is not as if tactics changed the day JFK died, so this is also an artificial divide, that either will double categorize some articles or exclude some.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 1 February 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.

Category:Novial

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting novial


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content and articles are easily interlinked. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The content is better navigated via the parent category and Category:Language comparison. There is not sufficient content to warrant further navigation. SFB 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I dont understand this, see the Category:International auxiliary languages, there is enough of reasons for keeping it, 4 entries is enough and there is big possibility for growing of the category because of "comparisons articles for example. --Nolanus (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - After doing some investigation of this topic, this is a classic example of the exception listed in WP:SMALLCAT. - jc37 21:11, 15 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.