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.
Comment. There has been a long discussion, see here, about harmonizing all categories with "church buildings" and categories with "churches" (insofar referring to church buildings). The outcome of that discussion was that it should be harmonized and to name all of them "churches", not "church buildings". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: How can you be neutral about merging? The categories are used for and (seemly) mean to be used for the exact same purpose.
You seem to think these two categories could (or do) have different purposes, but I have no idea what. Do you want to detail what Category:Catholic churches by country would be for? tahcchat 16:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: One category could be for Armenian Catholic, Eastern Catholic etc. while the other is in Hungary, in the United Kingdom etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Armenian Catholic Church is a sub set of the Eastern Catholic churches.
Fair enough, I was hesitant about it anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see not objection to the continuing harmonisation between churches and church buildings, but this needs to be tackled from the bottom up, by moving (recategorising) articles, even though mainly about buildings, to the churches tree; most articles are in fact about buildings and what happens in them, rather than about the congregation. When we start getting empty categories, we can start deleting them. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: So-- in your view-- should these two be merged together in the mean time? There are really 3 different issues here. 1. church building vs. church. 2. Catholic Church vs. Catholicism 3. Keeping these two forked categories vs. unforking them. tahcchat 16:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned with church buildings and local churches, not denominations. Armenian Catholic, etc is (I think) an intersection between Catholicism and a language, making it a sort of quasi-denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes -- A policy of merging buildings and congregations was begun with other denominations a month or so back. In my view is it is policy we should proceed with. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in each of the both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. We don't need a profusion of micro-local, tiny categories. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Both for Now With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - in order for a region to need suh categories, it needs to have several (at least 5-10) articles which clearly belong in that category. Each of these towns currently ony has one article for these categories. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:48, 30 November 2016 (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:Lists of Nickelodeon shows episodes[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.
Nominator's rationale: Current title is grammatically incorrect due to the plural "shows". A possessive could be added, but that was opposed at CFD/S, so I'm proposing a rename to the established convention (like Category:Lists of American television series episodes) instead. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The word "shows" can include one-off TV programs, but only series have episodes, so the proposal is good. – FayenaticLondon 21:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but "Category:Lists of Nickelodeon television episodes" could also work. The fact that it's television and has episodes already automatically indicates that it's a series. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only series have episodes. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2016 (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.
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.
Keep This seems like a relevant category to have on Wikipedia, there are many antiheroes characters in fiction listed on Wikipedia. Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as recreation of previously deleted category. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These could possibly include a few thousand characters. Nowadays antiheroes tend to be popular. Where do we draw the line? Dimadick (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective, and in so far as there is a distinction between antiheroes in fiction (and those outside of fiction?) even more subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Hardly a defining characteristic of the bands in question. The band member does not even have an article of his own. Geschichte (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless fancruft, and categorization by performance. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:36, 28 November 2016 (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.
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 to alternative proposal. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In categories of works or lists of works, the name of the franchise/performer etc is used adjectivally, and does not need to be punctuated as a possessive. Otherwise, in the example below, we would have "The Beatles' songs". – FayenaticLondon 08:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposal as-is – It's grammatically incorrect that way without the possessive due to the plural.
Since "series" is both the plural and singular form, this would work without a possessive, like Category:Lists of American television series episodes. "Show" in the singular would also work, but the nationality categories use "series", and that seems to be preferred by WP:TV, and I think it sounds better too. (I also added "television" to conform with the convention and avoid ambiguity). nyuszika7h (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(As nominator:) Support alternative, fits better with parent categories. I do not understand why nyuszika7h thinks "show" needs to be in possessive form and "series" doesn't, but as we're all happy with the alternative then let's go with it. The word "television" should certainly be added to the first category, although I'm not sure that "Disney Channel" needs "television" as well. – FayenaticLondon 21:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Like I said, "show" would be fine, but "shows" would be not as it's plural. "Series" is fine because it's both the singular and the plural form. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, is it your understanding that (i) a singular noun can act as an adjective (modifier), but a plural can't? and (ii) a noun which is the same in singular and plural form can be used as a modifier even in a context where it seems to be a plural? Just curious. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative, but also think "series" could be dropped, per my comment in the Nickelodeon CfD above this one. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:35, 28 November 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The "The" is not needed here, as it is not used in disambiguators (Beatles song). See n-grams for evidence that "The Beatles songs" is not a phrase used in English. Dicklyon (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name of the group is 'The Beatles' - see their article The Beatles. Surely anything connected with them has to follow that. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of link to evidence from books was to show that that is not the case. In spite of the name being 'The Beatles', you never find 'The' before 'Beatles songs' in actual use. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as contrary to C2D. Pppery 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not relevant, as there is no article titled 'The Beatles songs'; and if there was, we're probably fix it for the same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the band was "The Beatles" with a definite article as part of the name. This was discussed here and here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. Just as we[who?] agreed that (Beatles song) is a better ambiguator, including 'The' in the category name in this context is very much against English usage, even though the band name is well known and accepted as 'The Beatles'. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Turn it around: songs by Beatles implies something Macca with one of the others; songs by The Beatles implies the group as a whole. In speech one might well drop the article; but this is an encyclopaedia which should use a formal, correct, English not a slapdash bit of "News of the World" reporting. Would you write about "Who songs" for example? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article "the" is not needed or used when "Beatles" is used as an adjective. If we were disambiguating it from songs of a group with a similar name, we would say Category:Songs of the Beatles. tahcchat 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as unnecessary overdisambiguation. I live in "the United States", but when used adjectivally, "the" is dropped: "Anonymous has sent tips about ISIL to various United States intelligence agencies", not "... various the United States intelligence agencies". When you use "[t|T]he Beatles songs" it indicates you're talking about very specific ones, a subset only, that are clear in context: "The tracks on Laibach's cover of the entire White Album differ markedly in style but not lyrics from the Beatles songs they adapt." (Note also dropping of "The" from The White Album in such a construction, too.) English does this sort of thing with definite articles attached to proper names all the time: "Her novels have a bit of a Lord of the Rings air to them, but with neither Tolkien's depth nor his exclusive focus on men." "He is a New York Times editor." Etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly this is an American/British English issue. I would certainly have cast your sentence above as "The tracks on Laibach's cover of the entire The White Album differ ..." in formal writing. I'm not trying to stir up conflict, but would it help if people indicated which variety of English they normally use? There is little point in one faction saying "it's correct to keep the The" and the other faction saying it is incorrect if both are correct according to their version of English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's nothing to do with disambiguation. The band is The Beatles, the main category is Category:The Beatles and all the subcats use the same naming convention. We are naming a category, not writing a sentence. Oculi (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep The article is The Beatles so the categories should follow, per WP:C2D. If the article is ever renamed, by all means speedy rename the categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per C2D. Category names are not governed solely by "what would people actually say in speech" — they also have to follow a principle of logical flow from one category to another. The article is located at The Beatles, and even more importantly the eponymous parent category is located at Category:The Beatles, which means this category has to follow the same naming convention regardless of whether people would elide the definite article when identifying "Penny Lane" or "Hey Jude" or "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" as a Beatles song in spoken conversation — because its location has to be predictable from the related parent categories and articles. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The nominator also moved The Shirelles songs category and several of their songs without consensus, and against Wikipedia policy. That is vandalism done towards us members representing the Wikipedia community. Please change this back and begin a discussion in a civilized and fair manner, so as to the rest of us in the community may participate. Also, by changing this, all the others will need to be changed, too. Thank you.
Oppose, as long as the parent category is Category:The Beatles and the main article is The Beatles. Categories don't really reflect English usage if what you mean by that is how the phrase is used in an everyday sentence. We have all sorts of categories that use parenthetical disambiguators, and those are never found in everyday English. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There is a long-standing precedent that a group's name should be used in full in names like that, e.g. The Beatles discography, Category:The Rolling Stones songs. I very much dislike that the disambiguation for Beatles songs has been changed. We should not be making these decisions on a group-by-group basis. If "The" should or should not be included, it applies to all relevant groups. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:31, 30 November 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON as the category only contains two articles, each linked to and from each other. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wrong use of category. Geschichte (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We could have millions of useless categories like this if we did not prune them on sight. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:32, 28 November 2016 (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.
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. For films, categorization by director is generally taken as defining, and within the exception to WP:SMALLCAT, so WP:G8 does not apply. – FayenaticLondon 12:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The director of a film is defining for it. We do not need to have an article on the director himself/herself. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2016 (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.
