Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#Category:Religious Christmas

: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)

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible figures by book to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Book of Exodus‎ to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Book of Exodus (and to :Category:Art depicting Torah figures if still existing)

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Book of Numbers to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Book of Numbers (and to :Category:Art depicting Torah figures if still existing)

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Book of Judges‎ to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Book of Judges

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Book of Ruth‎ to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Book of Ruth

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Books of Samuel‎ to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Books of Samuel

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Books of Kings to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Books of Kings

:* Propose merging :Category:Paintings depicting figures from the Book of Daniel‎ to :Category:Paintings depicting Hebrew Bible people and :Category:Book of Daniel

:* Propose deleting :Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures by book

:* Propose merging article in :Category:Art depicting figures from the Book of Genesis to :Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible people (and to :Category:Art depicting Torah figures if still existing)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Art depicting figures from the Book of Exodus

:* Propose deleting :Category:Art depicting figures from the Books of Samuel

:* Propose deleting :Category:Art depicting figures from the Books of Kings

:* Propose deleting :Category:Art depicting figures from the Books of Chronicles

: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 sub:Category: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)

• Support BTW, is every person a figure? Are there any figures who are not people (e.g. the devil)? Laurel Lodged (talk)

:* They are all persons indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge unneeded level of specificity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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)

----

:* Propose merging :Category:Hutchison Whampoa to :Category:CK Hutchison Holdings

:** :Category:Cheung Kong Holdings to :Category:CK Hutchison Holdings

: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 ({{zh|t=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)

----

: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: 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 [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ Petscan] like [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?language=en&project=wikipedia&depth=20&categories=New%20Zealand%20films%0D%0A1980s%20films&ns%5B0%5D=1&interface_language=en&active_tab=&doit= this example for the 1980s]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|1990s New Zealand films}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|1990s New Zealand films}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|1990s New Zealand films}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|1990s New Zealand films}}

: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)

• Delete. Undoubtedly created in good faith, but there's a standing consensus against this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as the creator (1) the category is by decade rather than by year, and (2) is along the lines of :Category:2010s Japanese films (by decade back to the 1890s) and :Category:2010s South Korean films (by decade back to the 2000s). Hugo999 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. The films of these categories can be placed in lists as in other national cinemas. :Category:2000s South Korean films and :Category:2010s South Korean films contain only lists of films, which should be renamed/moved towards :Category:Lists of films by country by year (BTW :Category:2010s South Korean drama films is a triple crosscat, it is empty, and should be deleted anyway). The fate of :Category:Japanese films by decade should be decided separately. I think they should also be moved to lists. Hoverfish Talk 11:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Given that the year and nationality film categories are non-diffusing (meaning that "1981 film" and "New Zealand film" would be present on every 1981 New Zealand film) it is redundant to have a category for "1980s New Zealand films". The two independent categories are actually more specific. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Listify per Hoverfish. A far more useful method of dealing with such films is to doubly categorise per Betty Logan and others, and to create year or decade specific lists (cf. List of French films of 2000, List of Australian films of 2000, List of American films of 2000). Grutness...wha? 00:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (I do not normally vote in this area). There may be a consensus not to split by year, but this split by decade has enough of a population to survive. A split by year for many countries would produce a mass of miniscule categories, which we would not like, but where we can get at least 5 for a decade, I see no reason for not '''Keeping". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Further Comment I would be happy with "listing by decade" which could be met for New Zealand films by directing to the appropriate decade section of List of New Zealand films; eg List of 2000s New Zealand films (not sure if a type of redirect is preferable). At present the listing of New Zealand films in say :Category:1981 films and :Category:New Zealand films does not include them in either a decade or year category for either New Zealand or New Zealand cinema. Hugo999 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Note I just created :Category:1970s New Zealand films to fill a redlink. feel free to delete it if there is a consensus to delete the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Psychopathological syndromes to :Category:Psychological syndromes

: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)

• Comment – Most entries in this category seem pathological to me. On the other hand, User:Лорд Алекс's emptying of :Category:Psychological syndromes ought to be reviewed, and where needed reverted, because most of those conditions seem not pathological. Whether that latter category should be renamed or deleted is a whole different question. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• :Yes, many are pathological. If he's right that's almost implied by the word "syndrome", then do we really need to try to decide which are and which are not? Seems hard. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is no such thing as “psychological syndrome”! Psychology is not a medical specialty! Syndrome: “A syndrome is a set of medical signs and symptoms that are correlated with each other.” (ɔ) Wikipedia. There is no place for “psychological syndromes”, but we can rename this category to something for non-medical cases, like Hero syndrome. — Лорд Алекс (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• :"Psychological syndromes" are {{URL|1=https://www.google.com.au/search?q="psychological+syndrome"&tbm=bks|2=discussed a lot}} in psychological literature. If User:Лорд Алекс's assertion can be substantiated, Wikipedia's articles on syndrome and mental disorder need to be reviewed/rewritten, which would need some serious sources to be discarded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• :: WP:GOOGLEHITS. “Psychological syndrome” in Google is a collection of unscientific rubbish. — Лорд Алекс (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• :::The same WP:GOOGLEHITS also says, "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." which the search above is (note tbm=bks in the search term). Here's a [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Psychological+syndromes%22 search from Google Scholar].-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• :::: I think, we need to keep “psychopathological syndromes” (syn.: “psychiatric syndromes”), it's indeed a necessary category for psychiatric syndromes. I don't know what to do with articles used term “syndrome”, but without any medical (psychiatric) signs and symptoms in it. For example, Uncle Tom syndrome, Sudden wealth syndrome, Student syndrome, Queen bee syndrome, Empty nest syndrome. They are not pathological in medical terms. I think we need to rename “psychological syndromes” to something more scientifically and medically correct. Maybe “psychological syndrome” is widespread in Google Search, but psychology cannot operate with term “syndromes” by definition (if we talk about it with a strong scientific approach), it's not medicine. What is "syndrome"? (1) "A commonly observed combination of symptoms" Midline Medical Dictionary, p. 960 (2) "A group of symptoms and/or signs that, occurring together, constitutes a particular disorder, Illustrated medical dictionary (The British Medical Association), p. 536 (3) "A group of symptoms and other changes in the body’s functions which, when taken together, show that a particular disease is present." Dictionary of Medical Terms (A & C Black • London), p. 406 — Лорд Алекс (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Now the category I'd prefer has been emptied and speedily deleted. This is crazy. RS usage is clearly way in favor of psychological over psychopathological even for ones that are pathologies. The logic of Лорд Алекс is clearly nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• See also discussion in Category talk:Psychological syndromes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment if I understand the discussion correctly, :Category:Psychopathological syndromes is not a bad category at all; the problem is just that not all articles that currently are in the category belong there. The articles that do not belong, can we move them to :Category:Mental and behavioural disorders or any of its subcategories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• : The problem is that many articles with the name "syndrome" are not syndromes in medical terms! For example, Empty nest syndrome, Queen bee syndrome, Student syndrome etc are not a clinical conditions. We can't move them to :Category:Mental and behavioural disorders or any of its subcategories. But :Category:Psychological syndromes is non-scientific name of a category, we need something else. :Category:Psychopathological syndromes is not a bad category at all, you got that right! We need :Category:Psychopathological syndromes for the syndromes used in psychiatry. Also we have 6 interwikies for :Category:Psychopathological syndromes (see Wikidata link: {{Wikidata entity link|Q8015213}}). – Лорд Алекс (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

::* I understand the WP:SHAREDNAME issue of the nominated category. However, that issue does not apply to :Category:Mental and behavioural disorders in the sense that articles in that category don't have to be about syndromes, or do they? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

::::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)

----

: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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Religious_Christmas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Religious Christmas}}

: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)

• Keep, potentially rename, there is a clear difference between Christmas as celebrated by the Christian churches in :Category:Religious Christmas and the secular content in :Category:Christmas. But the category name is a bit unusual, perhaps :Category:Christmas in Christianity or something else might be better. In addition, :Category:Christmas may be removed from :Category:Christian festivals and holy days as it is no longer an exclusively religious holiday and it does not need any other parent since it is already in :Category:December observances. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• Rename - to :Category:Christmas in Christian culture or something around that theme. I largely agree with the above !vote. A category of this nature should exists but the present name is too vague. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

:* I wouldn't call it culture though. It is about Christian religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support The primary purpose is religious. If non religious or secular groups wish to appropriate the name / brand for other purposes, then ti should be up to them to create content that would justify the creation of a :Category:Non-religious Christmas. That's where the onus lies, with those who wish to make a secondary purpose. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

:* That is certainly a valid way of looking at it! It implies renaming :Category:Christmas to e.g. :Category:Christmas and society, then renaming :Category:Religious Christmas to :Category:Christmas, and reversing the parent-child relationship between the two categories. By the way, :Category:Christmas and society would also be a neat child category of :Category:Christianity and society. I will tag :Category:Christmas for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• REname -- I would suggest :Category:Christian Christmas in contrast with :Category:Secular Christmas to cover the commercial and secular froth that has built up around this important Christian feast. I do not like :Category:Christmas and society. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

:* Please note that articles in the Christmas category tree that are not in :Category:Religious Christmas may still have a religious component, e.g. the poem Journey of the Magi. For that reason :Category:Secular Christmas may be too narrow and :Category:Christmas and society may fit better. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

::* {{ping|Piotrus|Inter&anthro|Laurel Lodged|Peterkingiron}} Here is an alternative that may work even better: rename :Category:Christmas to :Category:Christmas in culture (as a child category of :Category:Christianity in culture and :Category:Christmas), then rename :Category:Religious Christmas to :Category:Christmas as proposed before. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

:::*Yes I am fine with Marcocapelle's proposal, although I am not necessarily opposed to the other rename proposals as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

:::*I am fine with Marcocapelle's proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

:::*no objection - I put forward an alternative in the hope of carrying the discussion forward. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

:* Upmerge is also an acceptable solution, at least we get rid of the odd and unsourced name of Religious Christmas. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

----

: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.