Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 1



Category:New Zealand bishops

 * 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: keep.  ✗  plicit  10:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting new zealand bishops
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Bishops in New Zealand. Mike Peel (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to parallel categories of nationality and location. These have two different meanings. "New Zealand bishops" is a child of Category:Bishops by nationality; while "Bishops in New Zealand" belongs to Category:Bishops by country. Elizium23 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as Elizium23 says, neither should be a parent of the other. Oculi (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, can you rename it to "Bishops from" then, to avoid the ambiguity in the name? Or "New Zealander bishops" might also work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already been told, in no uncertain terms, that we are not to use "New Zealander" to describe nationality or citizenship. Renaming this cat would take several dozen along with it, do we have consensus for all of them? Elizium23 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No - it's a subcat of Category:New Zealand people by occupation. Oculi (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I can't see how to fix this. "New Zealand bishops" = "Bishops in New Zealand" as I read it. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This format exists for other occupations. Eg, (the nationality) and  (the country of missionary labour). "New Zealander" is a noun, not an adjective. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As a New Zealander, the meanings seem clear to me, but from overseas eyes it might be a problem. Grutness... wha?   01:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar potential issues may arise with, , , , , , , and . The issue might be best treated with explanatory headnotes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's one of those exceptions that does not have a convenient demonyn that is bested treated with an explanatory headnote per list above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * New Zealand bishops is ambiguous. It covers both nationality and location.  it should be a parent of Category:Bishops in New Zealand  Explanatory headnotes do not work because few editors ever see them.  Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Explanatory headnotes do not work because few editors ever see them." They would work for those who see them. If the status quo holds, having them would be better than not having them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a bishops by nationality category, not a bishops by location cateogry. Previous discussions have shown a concensus that we want to keep the bishops by nationality category. Although I would argue in the case of Category:American bishops it is working as a shared name category, where we have captured articles on several American religious leaders who use the title bishop, but in their specific religious traditions it is not meaningfully distinguishable from pastor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't get why 'Bishops from New Zealand' would be a problem - it would match Commons. Mike Peel (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge manually. The tree is not wholly satisfactory, but we do not need both.  Category:Bishops from New Zealand would be a valid category (as a nationality category) to include bishops serving overseas.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Category:Bishops from New Zealand does not work because it goes against Category:New Zealand Christian clergy or its parent Category:New Zealand Christians. The standard for New Zealand categories is to not use from. If you want to change that, you need to make a proposal for a broader change, not just make a one occupation proposed change. This proposal is going against the whole New Zealand occupational tree, and we should not make a one-off change to just this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Those also look confusing. Where should I start that discussion - in a new CfD, or elsewhere? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the best approach. It seems that at heart you do not like Category:New Zealand people. The issue you are going to face is that A-with almost all current national polities that people do not want to use actual demonyms, this is the form used. I have no idea why it is Category:New Zealand people and not New Zealanders. I think there are good reasons, but I am not 100% sure what they are. Just to get a sense of the scope of what you are dealing with look at say Category:New Zealand people by occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That has over 100 categories, although only maybe 98 directly have the New Zealand x issue. On the other hand, some of those categories have sub-categories. If you think the bishops category is too ambiguous, I am suspecting you will have issue with Category:New Zealand Christian missionaries, Category:New Zealand Roman Catholic missionaries, Category:New Zealand Protestant missionaries, Category:New Zealand Anglican missionaries, Category:New Zealand Mormon missionaries (a category which I think should be renamed, the use of that terms is now considered offensive, it should be Category:New Zealand missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or at least Category:New Zealand Latter-day Saints missionaries. In that case without question the most famous person people would think of would be Matthew Cowley, who was a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New Zealand, both as a missionary and later mission president, created a translation of the Book of Mormon in Maori, was later the head of the Church in all the greater Pacific area, you get the picture. Yet the category as it exists is for missionaries who were nationals of New Zealand, not for missionaries who served there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My issue is when we try to split "Y from X" and "Y in X", which for the case of New Zealand is ambiguous. If you're mixing the two, then "New Zealand Y" is fine, but if you're saying it's for one or the other then it's confusing. That would apply in general to any New Zealand categories for occupations, I think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2021 (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:Frequent flyer programs associated with credit cards

 * 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) 00:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Frequent flyer programs associated with credit cards to Category:Frequent flyer programs
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC, WP:TRIVIALCAT, & WP:OVERLAPCAT)
 * I can't claim false advertising here: all of these articles are frequent flyer programs that are associated with credit cards but so are all the contemporary contents of Category:Frequent flyer programs. Affinity credit cards are ubiquitous with not only travel programs but alumni associations, sports teams, and charities but having a branded credit card isn't defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is a useful and helpful secondary category, and obviously it includes only a subset of articles included into Category:Frequent flyer programs directly. More frequent flyer miles are earned from credit cards than from flying. --Wiking (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning whether it is a subset though, other than a few early programs without a card. Are you aware of any contemporary frequent flyer programs that do not have an associated credit card? - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly there is a number of minor programs without a co-branded cards even in the US, not to mention numerous international programs. --Wiking (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at a number of programs and the closest thing I found to ones without credit cards was with some Middle Eastern airlines like this Qatari Airlines affinity card from an Islamic bank, since I'm not sure if it technically qualifies as a "credit" card. That's a pretty narrow potential exception though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Much has changed in recent years. After reviewing the list again, I concur that the category has lost its usefulness. On a side note, years ago there weren't many wiki articles about FFP, and I've created redirects to corresponding sections of the articles about airlines, in order to include those redirects into FFP categories as needed. Now I see that a couple of them have become redundant and should be cleaned up. As for categorization, in an ideal world we would have an article about every notable credit card out there, with sub-categories by issuing bank, country, or affinity program (for co-branded cards). Alas, we have nothing of the kind here. --Wiking (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If kept, rename to Category:Frequent flyer programs using credit cards. There is no need for the vaguely phrased "associated with". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2021 (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:Templates associated with Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose Renaming Category:Templates associated with Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge to Category:Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge navigational templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and maybe WP:C2C
 * There's not really a risk here of this category being overapplied, I just dislike non-container categories with the phrase "associated with" in them. But the proposed name is more succinct and follows the format of the few university specific template categories we have like Category:Syracuse University navigational boxes and Category:University of Nevada, Las Vegas navigational boxes. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2021 (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.