Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 31

< May 30 June 1 >

May 31

Category:Jackson 5

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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jackson 5 to Category:The Jackson 5
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. See also Category:Jackson 5 members, Category:Jackson 5 albums, and Category:Jackson 5 songs —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom; parent article uses "The", so should the cats. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2009 (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:Jewish film

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator (keep)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Jewish film to Category:Jewish cinema
Nominator's rationale: I propose to rename along the lines of other top-level cinema categories, such as Category:Native American cinema, Category:African American cinema, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if overall theory is to use "cinema" to refer to the medium, that would free up the word "film" to ubiquitously refer to individual motion pictures and allow us to avoid popcorn-flavored colloquialisms such as "movie", so I can support that. Not sure what then we'd use when referring to the place you pay $7.50 to go watch one. — CharlotteWebb 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also suggest that if this category is not renamed, we should consider renaming all "FOOian cinema" for consistency's sake. I'd say cinema has one clear advantage as a top-level name: there's less chance of confusing Jewish film and Jewish films, especially when using Hotcat to add categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as creator) I expected to name this category "Jewish cinema" but when I came to look at where it would go in the trees, I found to my my surprise that the potential parents all used "film" - "cinema" is only by country it seems. Category:Native American cinema and Category:African American cinema aren't exactly top-level, being both subs of the main US category, for which there is obviously no equivalent here. But I don't have strong feelings. The old Category:Jewish film and theatre is very nearly empty now. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod's done his homework better than me. I see that Category:Films by culture is the natural top category for this, with Category:Cinema by location obviously not applicable in this case. Which makes me wonder if some of the "FOOian cinema" cats I've been creating won't be CfRed at some point. Anyway, I withdraw the nomination so as not to waste anyone else's time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I agree "Cinema" is the more natural term, & would support a general renaming to that for "film" cats. As Charlotte says, that may reduce hot-cat mis-classifications. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shawn, I really do not understand why the nomenclature (for the flickering celluloid medium) should be different when discussing cultures vs. locations. Can I un-withdraw this, or should we start anew with a full list of categories to be considered? — CharlotteWebb 14:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you feel strongly about it I'll happily withdraw my withdrawal. But as you and Johnbod suggest, I do think the best way might be to propose a group nomination for all affected categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've un-withdrawn it.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- although some automated tools seem to make a mistake, the tradition (and category naming convention policy) is that singular is for the topic, and plural is for the instances. If the instances are "films", then the parent topic is "film". Those few using Category:Cinema by location are the odd ducks, and should be renamed.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 135 sub-cats of Category:Cinema by country, all using cinema. I think it is the influence of Film studies that has made Category:Film the top-level cat. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, Cinema is but a disambiguation page and Film is the actual main article. William may be right that a rename to Category:Film by location is in order, no? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Urg, but I see that we have cultural main articles like World cinema and African cinema, (with African film just a redirect), so that's an argument to rename to Jewish cinema, after all. I really don't know.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nominated before (years ago), but there was no consensus. However, when somebody went ahead and did it without achieving consensus, folks were furious. So, consensus is essential!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think having functionally different categories whose titles differ only by the letter "s" will invariably lead to confusion and mis-sorting. It may help to ask whether there is any other category structure which does it thisaway, and whether it should sooner or later be reconsidered also. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in a policy (should have put the link in my earlier comment):
Note that there are a growing number of category pairings, where the singular category (of related topics) and plural category (of its instances) both exist (for example, Category:Opera and Category:Operas). When categorizing articles, be careful to choose the correct variant.
  • Looking up the history for "Cinema" versus "Film" discussions, here's the gist of the prevailing argument (back in 2005-2006):
"Cinema" is the umbrella for "Cinemas", and "Film" is the umbrella for "Films".
  • Thus, "Cinema of ..." encompasses the film companies, and the theaters where they are shown, and the various conglomerates that traditionally own(ed) them both. Therefore, I take back my comment above that "Cinema of ..." should be renamed.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I agree, it couldn't be more clear -- what do you say I withdraw this nom -- again. Any objections, anyone? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't object per se, and have nominated some recent creations for renaming. Thanks for bringing it to everybody's attention!
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree As I said elsewhere, "cinema" sounds more encyclopedic to me than "film". A subjective argument, but nevertheless, such is my opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (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:DAW software


The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DAW software to Category:Digital audio workstation software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. To expand acronym. — Σxplicit 19:53, 31 May 2009 (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:Stick figures

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--Aervanath (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stick figures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining category, unlikely to expand. Two of the four articles don't seem to be notable topics, either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the whole, though if all are mentioned in the main article the cat might not be needed. I'm satisfied it's defining, & I'm sure there are or could be more articles. Notability is another issue, and not for here. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm - strictly speaking these are not stick figures. They are animated series (and in one case a website) that feature stick figure characters. I've poked around in the categories and I'm not finding other "media by the shape or form of the characters in it" except for Category:Anthropomorphism by media. I'm not convinced that this is a viable categorization scheme so I'm leaning toward delete. Otto4711 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2009 (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:Daniel Dumile

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.--Aervanath (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Daniel Dumile to Category:MF Doom
Nominator's rationale: I'm not big on really, really small eponymous musician categories of this sort (what's the point, really?) but if we're going to have one, let's at least have it match the name of the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or delete. I've looked through related stuff and it is all very confusing as everyone seems to have 3 or 4 names, just like a Russian novel. Occuli (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary small eponymous category. Lead article serves as an appropriate navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2009 (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:Images and media for deletion

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. Kbdank71 14:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Images and media for deletion to Category:Wikipedia files for deletion
Nominator's rationale: Should be renamed to match the parent project. I wasn't aware the last discussion had closed without a single !vote. The last discussion was closed as "no consensus" because the closer was afraid of renaming a category so widely used as this. Consider this a relist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I endorse the move to "Wikipedia files for deletion" per the other XFD categories. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (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:Daniel Dumile songs

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: Speedy close Category was emptied out. Closing discussion so I can tag for C1. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Daniel Dumile songs to Category:MF Doom songs
Nominator's rationale: Parent article is MF Doom, songs are credited to MF Doom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I'm considering having it deleted, since I've looked at a few of these song articles and none of them seems notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sofa King is quite interesting, without necessarily being notable. Occuli (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2009 (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:Michelle McManus songs

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: Nomination withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Michelle McManus songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category created by indef blocked sock puppeteer. Contains two songs (and one album... ho hum...) and is unlikely to contain more. Limited if any value provided by category. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a larger scheme. Songs are supposed to always be categorized by artist even if said artist only had one or two songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of Category:Songs by artist. Occuli (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is the first cat I've nominated for deletion, and purely as a result of it being created by an indef'd sock. On the basis of the two !votes above, I'm prepared to withdraw this nom (which is something I've not done before - how do I formally do it?) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if you just wait a friendly admin will come along and close matters. Occuli (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No bureaucracy? No magic incantations?! Too easy! Thanks in advance to the friendly closing admin, and to TPH and Occuli for handling this so diplomatically. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:19, 31 May 2009 (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.

Categories:South African football (soccer)

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. GO brings up an excellent point. People from all over the world are reading wikipedia. Following "local usage in each country" excludes everyone not from that country. We should all be doing what is best for wikipedia, not for certain readers of wikipedia if they're from this or that country. Kbdank71 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per recent change to use 'football (soccer)' disambiguate with reference to association football in South Africa Mayumashu (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still trying to figure out what was so bad about using football (soccer) for all categories related to this sport. — CharlotteWebb 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I d support it, for one, but purists oppose such a move. New Zealand needs to be shifted too, and I m sure that Japan and (likely) Korea should have the same move made because of their use of the foreign-loan word "sakkaa" Mayumashu (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is what has been done for South African soccer then rename. "Football" means diffierent things in different countries. WP should follow the local usage in each country. In England "Football" means soccer, unless Rugby, Rugby League, Australian or American is specifically specified. In America, football means American football. To try to impose Enlish usage on America or American usage on England (or South Africa) is an example of offensive imperialism. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "WP should follow the local usage in each country." This approach is defective and only really works if it is true that only Americans refer to U.S. categories; only British people refer to UK categories; only South Africans refer to SA categories; etc. There would be nothing wrong with using both terms in categories for all countries so that there would be no mistake about what the category is about, regardless of where the reader is from. So many WP users are far too provincial in their outlook and insist on defending the usage that they are familiar with when referring to their country. It's not a question of "imperialism", it's one of implementing a reasonable form of "universalism". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2009 (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:Neftekhimik Nizhnekamsk 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: rename. Kbdank71 14:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Neftekhimik Nizhnekamsk players to Category:HC Neftekhimik Nizhnekamsk players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club may refer to both the football club and ice hockey. Matthew_hk tc 08:48, 31 May 2009 (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:Inefficiently translated concepts

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: not created.--Aervanath (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Create. I believe this should be added as a category to include articles such as Déjà vu and Bildungsroman, which are short, simple phrases in their home tongue but which are long sentences by necessity in English. This page should not inclde words which translations are merely long, but instead concepts which are universally experienced for which English has no actual name.--67.77.198.31 (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there being no objective way to determine the "efficiency" of a translation, I think such a category would over time merely replicate Category:English words and phrases of foreign origin. After all, a foreign word or phrase is usually introduced into English because it captures a sense more easily than an English construction would.-choster (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Begs any number of questions about the relationships between experience, language and translation. But at minimum, every entry would need a reference to support its "inefficiency", which alone suggests a list page (if anything) rather than a category. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2009 (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:Sabbatarians

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 to Category:Seventh-day denominations.--Aervanath (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sabbatarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Merge with Category:Seventh-day denominations. (See discussion below for reason for merge.) While this category is called "Sabbatarians", it shows up in the edit text as {{Sabbath-Keeping Churches}}. These terms are both inherently POV, as they are including only those churches that keep the Saturday sabbath. Essentially, this categories denies the legitimacy of Sunday sabbath-keeping by the vast majority of Christian churches. Now I will admit, I have never visited CfD before, so I may not understand the rules around here, but this appears to me to violate WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue. Unschool 01:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree This is indeed the whole point: there are certain noteworthy churches keeping the saturday as a day of rest. Debresser (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But calling only these Saturday "Sabbath-Keeping Churches" is POV. Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, and hundreds of other Christian churches consider themselves as "Sabbath keeping"; they just don't use Saturday as the Sabbath. Unschool 02:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the {{Sabbath-Keeping Churches}} navigation box template is not a part of Category:Sabbatarians. They have nothing in common except that they are used on the same articles. Also although there are churches that strictly observe Sunday as Sabbath, “the vast majority of Christian churches” does not observe any Sabbath very strictly. Having said that, Rename both. Otherwise the nominator could reasonably add Sunday Sabbatarian churches to the category and the template. —teb728 t c 03:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean; you're correct, I had mistaken the template for the category (probably because when I looked at this edit, they both followed "Vegetarianism"). Anyway, if we go with your idea of renaming them, to what would you rename them? Category:Saturday Sabbatarians and {{Saturday Sabbath Churches}}? Unschool 05:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The term applies in my mind to a number of possible subjects, but principally people (as well as churches) who are particularly strict in the observance of a sabbath day, whether on Saturday or Sunday. I would regard the Lord's Day Observance Society as Sabbatarians. Many Christians (churches or people) are not strict sabbatarians. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this very notion of "strict" Sabbatarians is inherently judgemental (John says that Paula does not respect the Sabbath as she should), and is thus POV. Some people may sincerely think that they are "keeping the Sabbath holy" simply by going to church for an hour, others would believe that keeping the Sabbath requires no TV or music or even talking. Where is the definition of Sabbatarian that is supposed to apply here? Unschool 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Seventh-day denominationsKeep / Consider Rename The strong defining characteristic is that these churches keep Saturday as their Sabbath. I agree that the Sabbatarian name of the category is an issue, but deletion simply deals with the naming problem by tossing a clearly useful category for navigation into the garbage heap, rather than to conceive of a name that addresses the issues raised. I don't see a link in any of these articles that refers to their common characteristic, but the Saturday-as-Sabbath is a rather strong defining characteristic of these denominations. Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been coming to the same conclusion, Alansohn. What name would you suggest? Saturday Sabbatarians? Unschool 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there were a more standard term to describe such churches, but this would be an option, but something like Saturday Sabbatarian Christian denominations might be a better way to clarify the inclusion criteria. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, it appears that Category:Seventh-day denominations reflects the grouping and description we're looking for. I'd probably suggest a rename to Category:Seventh-day Sabbath Christian denominations (or some variation thereof), but this seems to be a better way to go by using a better-structured category. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OCAT and probably POV inclusion criteria. Since many churches follow this, the list should be larger. I think the point here is that we have those that are strict in their interpretation of how restrictive their observation of the day is. That makes inclusion purely subjective. If the concern is do they keep the Sabbath on Friday, or Saturday or Sunday, I see no need to split that out but clearly that should be a list. If kept, the name needs to be changed to reflect that it includes religions and not individuals. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am baffled as to the claims of OCAT or POV, let alone both. The vast majority of Christian denominations observe their Sabbath on Sunday, while a small fraction keep their Sabbath as Saturday. While interpretations of what one must do or not do on the Sabbath vary greatly across and even within denominations, the day of week that is observed as Sabbath is a rather strong defining characteristic of the denomination and the exceptions that observe their Sabbath on Saturday have that characteristic as one of their strongest defining characteristics. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is defined in its article as "a Christian denomination which is distinguished by its observance of Saturday, the original seventh day of the Judeo-Christian week, as the Sabbath", so much so that they made it the first two words of their name. The Church of God International (USA) is similarly defined in its article as "a seventh-day Sabbatarian Christian church". OCAT is a handy-dandy excuse for deletion, but I fail to see how church doctrine that has a denomination observing their Sabbath on Saturday is the "trivial intersection" that might justify OCAT. As to POV, we are tracking the day on which the Sabbath is kept, not comparing levels of observance in how faithfully individual adherents observe their Sabbath, which would rebut the POV issue. At the exact opposite end of the squishiest-defined category Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which has been resoundingly retained on multiple occasions at CfD despite inclusion criteria that are almost completely arbitrary and subjective, this category is the textbook definition of an objectively-defined and defining characteristic that is an effective aid to navigation across similar articles. This is exactly why WP:CLN advocates retention of both categories AND lists. I do agree on the need for a name change. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, I think that the POV makes sense from the standpoint that it only includes the Saturday folk as "respecting" the Sabbath. Further evidence is offered by some of the comments in this listing, where it appears that some of the supporters of this category also maintain a negative view towards other denominations.
Anyway, that's all water under the bridge, to me. As the original nominator, I'm withdrawing my request to delete this, and will ask if Alan or someone else will be willing to relist this as a CfD with the intent to rename. I don't care what we rename it, as long as it makes it clear that it only includes those who recognize Saturday as the Sabbath. Will that work? I thought about possibly just changing it up above, but it's been a week and would probably benefit from a fresh listing, would it not? Unschool 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to withdraw, as we can treat this as a rename. Please see my changed vote above for an alternate existing target. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Unschool 06:09, 7 June 2009 (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:Abstract objects

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 to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:Abstract_objects.--Aervanath (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Abstract objects to Category:Mental representations and abstract objects or simply Category:Concepts
Nominator's rationale: Rename. After created this category it has become more clear to me that for some the term has certain metaphysical presumptions. The rename is an attempt to satisfy both of the major prevailing views on concepts. See [1] for a more detailed account of the terms. The category has served to organize articles which had otherwise been difficult to properly classify. It also has potential to serve as a means of further organization of certain topics. Or perhaps we can simply bring back the deleted "concepts" category now that there is a meaningful way to deal with its content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to the debate on cat:Concepts please. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The debate that inspired the clarification was at Talk:Set (mathematics). There was objection to calling a set an abstract object. Now we have a way for dealing with these issues according to that source. However, I think the simplest thing to do is resurrect cat:concepts and leave it at that. There was no other debate that I had in mind. Was this what you had in mind Jonbod? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as separate. abstract objects and concepts are two different sets of things with a little overlap, but not enough overlap to merge or rename them. --Buridan (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead paragraph of articles such as mental representation, concept, and idea are sufficiently clear now that I think we can rely on them to deal with these distinctions. Strictly speaking, the idea is that concepts can be explained in terms of abstract objects, or mental representations, however to chose one is more POV than is necessary. Rename to "concepts" avoids this. I started the "abstract objects" category for organizational purposes and it has worked out wonderfully in that regard. The only issue is satisfying people who don't believe in abstract objects. I see that as a legitimate criticism. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this term is also used in computer science so this definitely needs to be renamed. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Abstract objects (philosophy). Philosophy is not the only use of these. Category:Concepts is overly vague and Category:Mental representations and abstract objects is wordy and may not really describe what is included. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Concepts" is not overly vague for what is intended. It is intended to be a fundamental level category which will help organize otherwise hard to categorize articles. "Abstract objects" was created by myself, and I now see that there is a legitimate problem with the title. Please see my userspace for some idea of what I have in mind: User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I have given quite a bit of thought to the whole thing. The goal is to differentiate between theories and concepts. I think we (especially in the philosophy department) are perfectly capable of organizing a useful and meaningful category structure with Category:Concepts.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2009 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_31&oldid=1136103149"