Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 8

1521:. I'm not sure that there is going to be a consensus here. The naming for categories is a little different then for articles since we are grouping likes and not naming things. While the current names have existed for a while without the need to indicate the type of item in these category names, this has now become an issue due the the renaming of some articles. So I guess the question is does that change mean that the category names have been a problem and that problem needs to be corrected? If the category names were not broken then why do we need to change? Other then changing 'Registered Historic Places' to 'National Register of Historic Places' do we really need to fix anything? Are the category names as they exist confusing for anyone? Would the proposed addition of listings be beneficial to the readers? Would it create more confusion then we have today? 2254:-- Calvinist refers to a theological position (supporting the doctrine of election), as opposed to Arminianism. I am not clear whether "Reformed" churches necessarily all hold that theological position. On the other hand, "Reformed" tends to refer to churhces that emerged from the Reformation, either as a synonym for Protestant, or as a grouping within Protestant Churches, distinct from the Lutherans (and Anglicans). I thus tend to agree that this a vague category, which could usefully be retired, but this needs to be done by distributing the contents to more appropriate categories, rather than either renaming or deleting. It needs to be kept until some one knowledgeable can undertake this recategorisation. Perhaps A rename to "reformed denominations", would do as an interim measure. 1260:. The individual things (buildings, historic districts, locomotives, shipwrecks, etc.) listed on the National Register are officially referred to as "properties," but there was reluctance to use the word "properties" in a list name because of concern that it erroneously implies an ownership relationship. In lengthy discussion at the NRHP Wikiproject, the word "listings" (meaning entities on the list) was selected as an alternative noun for use in titles for list articles. Among other things, the word "listings" has been used by the National Park Service, which maintains the National Register. -- 2146:

movement that birthed them. "Calvinist" seems more theological than informational. In France, in particular, "Calvinist" sometimes brings up negative sociological images, in a general sense, to the public at large. I happen to live in Europe and do a good deal of research on line so this change bothered me (and I do have a Reformed beckground -- I am not anti-calvinist!). Make sure any change is something clear and connected to the "Reformed" wordings. Thanks for letting me put in my two centimes.

4888::"BBC Worldwide has also sealed its first format deal in Malaysia, where the satellite channel Astro is to produce its own version of the Great Britons format to mark the country's 50th year of independence. Work on Great Malaysians will begin in June for broadcast later this year. The format has now been sold into 14 countries including Spain (TVE), Holland (KRO), the US (Discovery), Germany (ZDF) and France (France 2)...." From over a year ago. 3479:-- Finland was ruled by Sweden until its conquest by Russia in (I think) the 1800s. It is conceivable that this remains a substantive ethnic group. If so, it should be kept. We have numerous categories for Booians of Fooian descent. This is the same kind of thing in a different style. Swedish is taught as a second language in Finland, so that persons merely with the ability to speak Swedish should not be included. 4729:. Absent such sourcing this is overcategorization by shared/similar name that basically amounts to "TV show ideas which were ripped off from other TV shows" which is a road down which I would hope we would not choose to travel. There is a list (also unsourced) and a template, so the articles are more than adequately connected if an actual connection between them is ever established. (oops forgot to sign) 4576:- Not sure I'm correctly interpreting what I'm looking at, but from what I can tell, of the categories, "Christian" predates "Christianity". Then the creator of the latter tried to soft redirect the former to the latter, and then reverted themself. (Note also that Christian is a noun too.) I think I'd like to see more discussion on this. - 4205:-- which are two entirely different kinds of animals. So I'm going to close out this discussion, since the issue you're dealing with is simply outside the purview of a CFD discussion. You've already got both of the articles tagged for merging, so you can either resolve things through that process, or if you wish, you can tag the 813:; as discussed, we can't just add "National" to the current name (esp if registered is fixed to register). "National Register of Historic Places" is a singular entity. The Register is the noun, so just adding National would leave you with essentially "Railway-related National Register", which is horrible grammar 4904:

So you're suggesting that the dozens of for instance home improvement shows with near-identical formats that have sprung up everywhere all trace back to one common licensed show? You have a cite for that rather extraordinary claim? It may very well be common knowledge that similar shows are sometimes

2931:

Yes, there is a slight difference in the actual roles played by strikers and centre-forwards, but the two terms are also fairly interchangeable. This category doesn't seem to distinguish between players who are normally considered centre-forwards and those considered strikers, so the actual naming of

924:

The purpose is to eliminate the phrase "Registered Historic Place" which was invented on Knowledge. The National Park service created and maintains a list called the "National Register of Historic Places". We have discussed many alternatives including "listings", "entries", "items", "sites", etc. The

4864:

certainly applies to categories as well as articles. Regardless, that a particular television program has been licensed from another similar program is hardly common knowledge. Indeed, you've acknowledged that it is an assumption on your part. You're the one arguing in favor of the category. It's up

4967:

Calm down - have you overdone the pills? I gave you exactly what you asked for & you go into hyperdrive. Do you really believe the blog - of a firm with a reputation to uphold in the business - is wrong, or that 10 mins research would fail to confirm it from what WP laughably regards as a more

4883:

No. It is only the category note that claims that & that does not affect the utility of the category imo. The common knowledge is that very similar formats need to be licenced from the originator. The similarities were very apparent from the articles I saw. I'd point out the nom is to rename -

2565:

I also think it would be unclear what is meant by an "independent" Baptist church (all Baptist church independent in goverment, and some with the word "independent" in the name may still work with a denomination)-- but better to have "independent" Baptist church in own category or no category than

1232:

Starting with the last question, yes it is ambiguous since there are also can be state lists using that name. Is it necessary to adds words indicting the fact that these items have been listed or is that implied? If they are not on the list they would not be in the category. Does the presence of

1543:

the term "Registered Historic Place" and has been treating this invented term as a proper name throughout hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and categories. After months of discussion at the Wikiproject, new terminology was selected for article names and is being implemented. Renaming of the

2145:

I would not support changing the name unless a clear link to new the category is provided for users searching for the "Reformed" wording. Especially the European context, the term "Reformed" is used more often than "Calvinist", when referring to the denominations, or the spiritual and cultural

4412:

I'm seriously wondering if we're just categorising to categorise here. I know that this was a bit of a "todo" previously, but the "titles" cats are pervasive. The various "companies" cats, not so much. We shouldn't be creating a "company" parent if that cat is only going to hold the company's

1562:

As noted earlier you cannot simply replace "Registered Historic Places" with "National Register of Historic Places". Even without knowledge or understanding of how the NRHP works, it's grammatically clear that the former is a plural whereas the latter is a singular noun. I continue to

1567:

the Park Service would officially adopt the former terminology, but it has its own reasons besides the universal imperative of governments everywhere to not only manhandle the language but indirectly force others to do so. And I can't use Knowledge to make them do the sensible thing.

2710:. The 'churches' categories are generally used for the buildings with other classifications, like denominations, used for the religion itself and articles that relate to it. A split would be consistent with the structure used for many other religions. If it is easier to rename to 2088:

but I have never known such groups use that term, at least not formally. Their very anit-saint outlook seems to move them avoid naming themselves or denominations or churches after any human, like Calvin. Theology can be "Calvinist" or "Reformed" but churches, formally speaking, are

1869:. This and the above discussion need to be closed in a similar way. I'll argue that this discussion may need to continue somewhere specifically directed to categories. How will this change work when it gets migrated down to the state and other political divisions and groupings? 4413:

article, and a sub-category of the titles. Such categories (the company ones) could and should be upmerged, as we do all other such small categories. (And I may do just that as a group nom in the future, not sure yet.) And such cats can always be recreated should usefulness arise.

2557:

I think I only found one or two churches the category to begin with, but my intention is make this category clear-- clearly about denominations and not independent churches or church buldings also, so that its loction in other categories is clear. I want to remove it from the the

2491:- There is a whole struture of categories of on denominations-- and a whole separate struture of categories of on church (building)s. "Denominations and churches" is unclear and confusing as people will sometimes use the term "church" to mean a "denomination". There are already: 5042:

I'm sorry, but whether the articles are being deleted or not is irrelevant to whether the category should be kept. And I agree that the purpose of the category is clear, but there's no indication in any of its constituent articles that they are actually related to one another.

4754:

in this category, & generally the article establishes a useful grouping imo. Otto may be right about the category note/description, but that is just an argument for changing that. However the name gave me no idea what to expect from the category (horse-racing maybe?) so

2538:

There is certainly a problem here, but I don't think an independent church is a denomination - is the intention to remove these from the category? A note on the category defining its scope and pointing to alternatives for buildings etc would be the first step.

995:. So I would think there would be no objection here to adding National to the category names. I suspect that after this discussion there would be near unanimous support for that change. The concerns now are probably about the need to include the word 2693:-- Church can refer either to a body of believers or the building where they meet. I would suggest that these go into the "church" category, where as denominations can be dealt with separately, either by upmerging or renaming. (Note I am English). 1296: 2562:, etc.-- and eliminate and perceved need to keep a page in both "Category:Baptist denominations" and "Category:Baptist denominations and churches in North America" when they can just be put in "Category:Baptist denominations in North America" 1398:

won't work. The mouthful "National Register of Historic Places" is a singular noun referring to the entire Register. That term cannot be used to refer to individual entities on the Register (which is what this proposed name would do).

4934:

And excuse me, but you've been here more than long enough to know that once something is brought to CFD all options are on the table, so spare me this eyelash-batting disingenuous "this was supposed to be about renaming!" nonsense.

1119:. It's concise and it echoes what we've been renaming the list articles to in the wake of all the linked discussions. I was going to (ahem) register an objection to the use of "on", but it seems "in" shows up in more Google hits. 1292: 962: 3808:. I know it is in danger of breaking up, but it still exists for the moment. "Continuing Anglicanism" should not appear, but a cross-reference to a more appropriate category might encourage the over-enthusiastic to desist. 925:

consensus is to use "listings", which in this case includes bridges, tunnels, engines, depots, shops, etc. related to railroads in the U.S. I'm open to specific suggested alternatives within the framework I have described.--

5125:. I was hoping that someone would present a case for the rename over a delete. Failing that deleting based on the discussions here seems to be the best move. Having a list makes this an easy decision at this point. 881:

which is the parent. I think the parent name needs to be discussed and either that one should be added by the nominator to this discussion or this discussion withdrawn and one opened for the parent. I just looked at

1887:

I expect that we'll be using the same nomenclature as the list articles: "National Register of Historic Places listings in JURISDICTION". The topicsl and property-type categories are really the hard part.

4801:

Thanks for the link. Having looked at a few (Argentina, Sth Africa, Russia etc) the format would seem to be sufficiently similar to suggest licenses were involved. If one could be bothered to register at

1288: 1284: 966: 891: 883: 4398:

without too much fuss. Surprised to see Elseworlds in the imprint category. Can't see a source in the article for describing it as an imprint, and I'd always seen it as a line rather than an imprint.

1548:. I think the fact that this erroneous nomenclature existed for such a long time is a problem, because there has been a long period of time for the Knowledge neologism to seep out into the world. -- 3833:

related categories, and putting the word "Churches" first hides the purpose in capitalizing it to mean the larger Church bodies and not just capitalized for being at the start of the category name.

3624:

which I think is clearer, and will at least make people pause a moment before adding yet another parish church to the category. With "Communion" if necessary; I don't think I see the need myself.

2604:. I've no problem with the changing of this from "denominations and churches" to just "denominations". The single churches (orgs or buildings) can and probably should be separated as nom suggests. 2858:

This is an inappropriate intersection of categories. Players can already be categorised as English footballers and as strikers, but there is no need to have a category to identify them as both. –

1539:

The underlying issue is not that the articles are being renamed, but rather that there was a serious problem with the names of all these articles and categories. That is, Knowledge apparently

2062:. Whilst broadly Calvinist churches seem to be the only ones to use "Reformed" in their titles, the term is often used elsewhere with a wide range of meanings - see the current version of 1046:

is an official usage of the phrase from 1982. I would be surprised if the term 'registered historic place' is not in general use (in lower-case), in the real world outside wikipedia.

895: 42: 37: 4805:

it would probable say which markets have had licenses granted. I still think the category worth maintaining. The grouping here is more interesting than in most licensed tv shows.

3459: 3252:

I added the second one. I looked at the articles and I don't believe that we need to upmerge since the articles appear to have different but correct parent categories already.

3737:

That is ok, though I think Continuing Anglican articles are likely to be more carefully placed. I think "church bodies" is needed, or charities, schools etc will be added.

2066:

which is desperate to avoid any statement referring to the 16th century Church of England as "Protestant", so uses "reformed" instead! That certainly doesn't mean Calvinist.

4916:

If you're now saying that these shows should be lumped together whether there's any relationship between them or not, then that's clearly overcategorization by shared name.

1656: 1162:. This is the best proposal here. It is concise and it uses the noun "listings" that was agreed upon (for list articles) after lengthy discussion in the NRHP Wikiproject. -- 1098:. This has the virtues of being shorter, matching the subcats and correcting the grammar of "on" vs. "in". Unless there's some official reason it should be "on", of course. 878: 2747:

as sub-cats of this category, even though other Baptist churches are independent. Churches should be sub-cats of denominations rather than head categories as at present. -

1064:

Unfortunately the link points to a state of Illinois list. The National Register of Historic Places is a U.S. government function administered by the National Park Service.

1715: 1691: 1633: 1469:"Listings" is also analogous to its use in the buying and selling of real estate, and we also found that a lot of the state historic-preservation offices tend to use it: 2672: 2513: 1464:

are also on the Register, and those are often as not collections of properties owned by different parties; therefore the singular "property" is grammatically incorrect.

833: 1440:

As for x, "listings" just seems confusing to me. The previous discussions "entries" is better, but not by much. Id there soemthing else we could substitute for "x"? -

4373:, there are two sub-cats and two entries. If we do decide to merge the two, we can still make the resultant categories a sub-category of all the original parents. -- 3696:

Just AC ones. This can all be done by notes in bold I think. So long as the category is just "churches", we will continue to have 50% inappropriate articles I fear.

2736: 2661: 2639: 2621: 2399: 1159: 1134: 1095: 810: 5059:

A number (most?) say this, but I've not seen any such "indications" with references. But actually it cannot be doubted that most are produced under license, from

2740: 2498: 4068:

Actually, looking at more articles in AR, some are in & some are out of the AC, but I think we have to treat the categories seperately. Whether things like

2204:. Can you find any church that uses the term "Calvinist" in its name? I couldn't. Now look at how many use "Reformed" in their name. Likewise for the Knowledge 2093: 1283:

The relevant discussions took place over a couple of months at multiple locations. For the discussions that finally resulted in consensus on article names, see

2431: 547: 4310:. Given its narrow definition, the category is unlikely to gain additional members. It seems to me that it would simplify things if the two were combined. 1233:

listings present confusion to any readers from the name? Will some portion of readers think the category contains lists? I think the answer there is yes.

1843: 1815: 1360:

per Vegaswikian, et al. - The appropriate term, and avoids the "on vs. in" debate, and avoids "listings". Sometimes the shortest route between two points

5024:

per nom. The purpose of the catgory is clear and so are its contents. The articles are not being deleted so this category is appropriate to hold them.

4985:

I don't think these lists are sufficiently neutral and reliable. By adding them to our category structure we give them credibility they don't deserve. __

3967: 3921: 1802: 2423: 1694:. This has the virtues of being shorter and correcting the grammar of "on" vs. "in". Unless there's some official reason it should be "on", of course. 539: 5064: 3767: 3719: 3542: 3012: 2613: 1395: 1374: 1356: 1240: 5060: 2451: 2414: 738: 722: 670: 530: 435: 21: 4369:

I'm all for structure and consistency, but with so few entries, I feel like it adds a barrier to navigation rather than aiding it. At least with

3572:

Rename to match the category content (Churches and Provinces that are part of the Anglican Communion) and to match naming conventions of used in

1798: 1652: 1500:

In short, there's a lot of weight and consensus behind this wording, which took us a month to settle on. I'm not in a mood to reopen it here.

899: 863:. Why 'listings'? Most of the contents are articles, not listings. I rather prefer the 'incorrect' syntax, which is both clear and succinct. 3339: 2035: 1425: 1321: 742: 4760: 1352: 1236: 829: 5092:

or deleting given the existence of a list which can better address citing to demonstrate that all of these shows are actually spin offs.

2338:

as a first step, then would the nominator please check afterwards whether any articles need to be re-categorised in Calvinism instead. -

4725:- I checked almost all of the articles and none of them contain sourcing for the assertion that any of these shows bear any relation to 2744: 2503: 2201: 756: 729: 711: 653: 17: 4706:. Capitalization (It is not a title of something by ityself, and in wikipedia tiltes (articles, sections, etc.) are non-capitalized). 3068: 661: 119: 2711: 2455: 4968:"reliable" source, like a newspaper? Try Googling BBC Worldwide & other relevant terms, or register on their site like I said. 5089: 4195:

This confused the hell out of me... Until I figured out that you've come to the wrong place with this. You're talking about actual

4031:

outside it, although they share many views. It seems a mistake that CA is a sub-cat of AR. So no on this one. Some articles, like

1956:, to be followed with a recategorization of any calvinism-related articles (by someone who knows more about the subject than I do) 107: 5110: 3826: 3805: 3718:

This is long way around for very little (if any) gain. People often do not even look at the category page itself. Renaming it to

3593: 3573: 2162: 2023: 2019: 1285:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Naming discussion for "List of Registered Historic Places in ..."

2715: 4557: 4510: 3971: 3946: 3942: 3934: 3917: 3674: 3418: 3330: 2335: 2297: 2286: 2278: 2055: 2011: 1953: 5109:

I agree with Vegaswikian on this. Honestly the debate about sourcing above, alone, is pushing me towards listifying. See also

4072:- the standard Episcopalian diocese, should be in AR I rather doubt - do they all have the same views? Anyway, glad we agree. 5143: 3443: 3414: 2915: 2874: 2508: 103: 2830: 678: 4001: 3997: 3930: 3564: 3024: 1458:

The National Park Service prefers to avoid it, as it implies federal ownership or heavy regulation, which is not the case.

452:

as nominated. I see there used to be two lists but they have been merged. No need to upmerge into its other head category

383: 3601: 2894: 2273:-- If you and others are unclear the meaning of "Reformed" in this context, it should not matter. The move would be from 118:. Fix caps on the non-proper noun "Student Societies" and change "UK" adjective to "British" to mirror immediate parent, 4420: 3938: 3723: 3667: 3654: 4525: 4159: 2838: 1490: 5155: 5134: 5117: 5101: 5076: 5052: 5033: 5013: 4994: 4977: 4944: 4929: 4897: 4874: 4854: 4834: 4814: 4794: 4772: 4738: 4715: 4691: 4681: 4622: 4603: 4580: 4566: 4495: 4434: 4407: 4382: 4359: 4342: 4319: 4277: 4218: 4188: 4149: 4081: 4069: 4063: 4044: 4010: 3987: 3959: 3907: 3846: 3817: 3790: 3776: 3746: 3732: 3705: 3683: 3633: 3610: 3550: 3488: 3471: 3450: 3434: 3397: 3376: 3347: 3322: 3261: 3247: 3224: 3135: 3076: 3059: 3036: 3000: 2939: 2926: 2906: 2884: 2865: 2821: 2813: 2754: 2727: 2702: 2681: 2650: 2628: 2593: 2572: 2548: 2524: 2476: 2407: 2345: 2314: 2263: 2244: 2227: 2214: 2195: 2166: 2138: 2123: 2102: 2085: 2075: 2059: 2044: 1962: 1897: 1878: 1855: 1827: 1809: 1790: 1765: 1744: 1727: 1703: 1676: 1642: 1577: 1557: 1530: 1509: 1444: 1408: 1386: 1368: 1335: 1308: 1278: 1269: 1252: 1196: 1171: 1146: 1128: 1107: 1076: 1055: 1030: 1008: 978: 952: 934: 911: 872: 853: 819: 594: 576: 522: 463: 442: 424: 391: 366: 307: 286: 274: 260: 222: 163: 146: 126: 93: 3646: 3642: 3621: 2300:

to another name to that effect, that is fine with me, but if we cannot agree the best option we still need to delete

987:

I had read through the talk page and just now scanned the archive. The archive is clearly about avoiding the use of

374: 1377:. That was the main point of the decision to change. Whether or not to include "National" was a side-bar decision.-- 4917: 4782: 4619: 4307: 4287: 3763: 3560: 3187: 3152: 2751: 2342: 1978: 753: 460: 232: 143: 4553: 4533: 4516: 4506: 4370: 3008: 2918:, and a comment on the article's talk page suggest that there is a difference between the two terms. So, for now, 5171: 4695: 4662: 4638: 4476: 4452: 4395: 4335: 4258: 4234: 4125: 4101: 3888: 3864: 3528: 3504: 3425:

and leave messages for the Finnish and Swedish Wikiprojects to come to consensus on the proper course of action.

3303: 3279: 3116: 3092: 2981: 2957: 2794: 2770: 2559: 2385: 2361: 2205: 2027: 1939: 1915: 1619: 1595: 796: 772: 634: 610: 503: 479: 347: 323: 236: 203: 179: 74: 5170:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4637:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4451:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4233:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4100:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4000:(basiclly another name for the same movement and containing the same sorts of articles) and put its articles in 3863:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3503:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3278:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3091:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2956:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2769:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2360:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1914:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1594:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1137:. "On" is better because it parses to "items on the list" which makes more sense to me than "items in a list".-- 771:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

609:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

478:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

322:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

178:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4909:

were licensed from the British as opposed to simply being ripped off from one another. And sorry, but when the

4661:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4475:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4424: 4416:

But to upmerge the titles to the company ones simply to justify their existence doesn't seem to be a good idea.

4378: 4315: 4257:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4206: 4124:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4032: 3887:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3527:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3302:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3115:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2980:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2793:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2384:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1938:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1618:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

795:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

633:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

502:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

346:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

202:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3235: 3178: 3143: 2305: 2301: 2274: 2007: 1969: 3385: 746: 5151: 4338:, and the twin "branches" above it.) And the parent could probably be deleted if found to be unnecessary. - 3813: 3484: 3195: 3160: 2698: 2259: 1986: 159: 4842: 4803: 4173:

can never (appropriately) be a reasonable-length article without simply duplicating information elsewhere.

4028: 3837: 3581: 3410: 3072: 2158: 1043: 1544:

categories is one of the last steps in the process of expunging Knowledge of a term that was essentially

5130: 5097: 4747: 4616: 3975: 3372: 3257: 3220: 2748: 2723: 2339: 1893: 1874: 1740: 1573: 1526: 1505: 1328:). Most of the rest of those opposing didn't like the plural-sounding "places" followed by another noun. 1248: 1124: 1004: 948: 907: 750: 572: 457: 140: 4176:

is better shown in context of the definitions of other classes (heavier and lighter) than in isolation.

3588:

is about church buildings and/or local churches, where unions of these lower case churches are called

1455:"Listings" does indeed have consensus. It was either that or "properties", and that had two problems: 4184: 4024: 2154: 2150: 1759: 1190: 705: 418: 2624:. Anyway, if this is changed to "of", it would be immediately eligible for speedy renaming to "in". 5010: 4599: 4562: 4374: 4311: 4303: 4291: 4059: 4006: 3955: 3842: 3772: 3728: 3679: 3606: 2997: 2936: 2881: 2862: 2677: 2643: 2625: 2568: 2520: 2472: 2310: 2240: 2210: 2098: 2063: 2040: 1823: 1672: 1486: 1382: 1142: 1072: 1026: 974: 930: 849: 271: 123: 4597:

it is used as an adjective. It is a category of "templates on all things Christian" --adjective --

5147: 5048: 4940: 4925: 4870: 4830: 4790: 4734: 4711: 4214: 4145: 3809: 3650: 3480: 3467: 3430: 3055: 2694: 2255: 2015: 1699: 1103: 155: 4885: 4785:

but again there is no citation that these various programs are actually related to each other.

2129:

Yes, I think that is clearer, as Calvinist is the descriptive term mostly used by non-members.

1690:

proposal. Leaving the syntax question aside for the moment, if this is to be renamed I suggest

5072: 4973: 4893: 4850: 4810: 4768: 4355: 4077: 4040: 4035:"Orientation:Charismatic Anglican and Evangelical Catholic" don't seem to belong here at all. 3983: 3786: 3742: 3701: 3629: 2544: 2327: 2134: 2071: 1461: 453: 303: 1470: 567:

Category was created to use with a template that has since been deleted. Only has one entry.

5126: 5093: 5029: 4403: 3368: 3253: 3243: 3216: 3032: 2902: 2719: 2289:

to stay. We just have people who what it removed and people that feel they lack information.

1889: 1870: 1851: 1786: 1736: 1723: 1569: 1553: 1522: 1501: 1404: 1304: 1265: 1244: 1167: 1120: 1051: 1000: 944: 903: 868: 568: 248: 4913:

in your source is "blog" that raises enormous if not insurmountable reliability guidelines.

2718:

shortly after the rename, that would be acceptable. I'm unsure about the 'of' v 'in' issue.

2671:

By the way, I have created a number "of" sub-categories to follow the format of the parent

1846:. As noted above, National Register of Historic Places is a singular noun, not a plural. -- 1094:- the syntax question is making my head spin a bit, but if this is to be renamed I suggest 4180: 1754: 1291:

and continuing through the following subsections. Discussions previous to that one are at

1185: 700: 413: 4350:

each one is part of the larger structure and have their own distinct parent categories. (

4430:

Note: I enboldened my comment above to indicate that that perspective hasn't changed. -

2932:

the category is immaterial next to the fact that it is an inappropriate intersection. –

4990: 3421:. It strikes me as a poor choice either to delete or rename this in isolation. Suggest 3393: 3047: 2933: 2878: 2859: 1819: 1778: 1668: 1657:

Category:Listings related to infrastructure on the National Register of Historic Places

1378: 1331:

Based on that, and the concerns here, it's probably better to restructure the names. -

1138: 1068: 1022: 970: 926: 879:

Category:Listings related to transportation on the National Register of Historic Places

845: 256: 1434:

So far, that seems to give us: National Register of Historic Places railroad-related x

5044: 4936: 4921: 4866: 4826: 4821:"Sufficiently similar to suggest licenses were involved" seems rather a bit close to 4786: 4730: 4707: 4678: 4492: 4274: 4210: 4201: 4141: 3904: 3580:

churches" implys bodies all of Anglicanism but it does not nor is it ment to contain

3547: 3463: 3426: 3319: 3132: 3051: 2810: 2590: 2404: 2120: 1959: 1695: 1639: 1099: 816: 650: 587: 519: 363: 219: 90: 1716:

Category:Infrastructure-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places

1692:

Category:Infrastructure-related listings in the National Register of Historic Places

1634:

Category:Infrastructure-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places

5068: 4969: 4889: 4861: 4846: 4822: 4806: 4764: 4351: 4073: 4036: 3979: 3782: 3738: 3697: 3625: 2540: 2188: 2130: 2067: 1545: 1478: 296: 1297:

Knowledge:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals

1065: 834:

Category:Listings related to railroads on the National Register of Historic Places

2739:. As some churches are members of the denominations, it would make sense to have 2584:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

2114:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.

5025: 4399: 3974:

as the parent of that and the bishops sub-cat, & to hold some articles like

3239: 3028: 2898: 2185: 1847: 1782: 1719: 1549: 1493:

for example. The NPS itself also refers to its weekly additions to the Register

1400: 1300: 1261: 1163: 1047: 864: 2620:"? This is a fairly long-standing WP convention, I believe. So I would support 2238:

of many membership using "Reformed" in their name and not using "Calvinist"? --

1437:

Else we have: Railroad-related x in/on the National Register of Historic Places

2308:

and reposting the topic as a rename afterward may help focus the discussion.--

2285:

is not really the word at issues here. In fact, no one here has asked for the

1494: 4884:

deletion is so far only argued by you. See the para beginning "BBC Worldwide

2330:(plural) and the existing category should not be kept with its current name. 1160:

Category:Railway-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places

1135:

Category:Railway-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places

1096:

Category:Railway-related listings in the National Register of Historic Places

811:

Category:Railway-related listings on the National Register of Historic Places

5114: 5004:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

4986: 4577: 4431: 4339: 3447: 3389: 2923: 2647: 2224: 2192: 1806: 1474: 1441: 1365: 1332: 1275: 1021:, right? The primary concern was to eliminate "Registered Historic Place".-- 726: 591: 439: 283: 252: 4655: