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 as nominated. –
FayenaticLondon 14:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, as the scope of each of these categories completely overlaps with one of its subcategories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination. –
Sabbatino (
talk) 09:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: I agree in principle, but I do not believe that "Fact is that we categorize by polity" is true. Look at
Category:History of the United States by period: I see a lot of categories looking like
Category:History of the United States (1980–91) (which pretty much overlaps with
Category:1980s in the United States...). Granted, USA has pretty much one polity, barring some Colonial era footnote-stuff, so it needs child categories, but here you go. We could of course say that it is polity on the top level, and date ranges as child categories (through we not just use the centuries and decades/years in a Foo country then), but while again, it sounds like a sound principle, is it indeed written down anywhere? Looking at UK history, I also see no division by polity, just stuff like modern/medieval and eras, then going into decades.
Category:Late Modern France seems to match the polity division, barring some minor eras, etc. So does
Category:Modern history of Germany. As you will note, I am not objecting - much - but it would be good to write down this rule/logic somewhere, then proceed on standardizing as much as we can. Last thing to note: long ago when I was active in writing history of Poland articles, I stressed strongly the need to make sure people understand the difference between a former polity article (which should be structured just like that for modern polity - with sections on economy, administration, and history) and history of said former polity/era; note in particular that for example a
History of Poland (1918-1939) (or whatever it redirects to) should be a section/child for
Second Polish Republic (entity which existed in 1918-1939). I thought it would be logical to apply this division to categories, too, alas I see your point that in the category the overlap is much bigger. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge one way or the other. These two categories cover the same thing. I have no opinion on which form is better.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: seeking clearer consensus on which way to merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note to closer: both sets of categories are now tagged. –
FayenaticLondon 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
(as nom) Regarding the direction of merge, I would definitely favor keeping the polity categories, thus keeping the merge direction as nominated. The periods in "History of" categories were derived from the polities.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian Christians
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:keep. –
FayenaticLondon 19:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. There's absolutely no reason to rename this category at the moment, given its compatibility with the rest of the category tree and the absence of a competing category for the political party. Even if we later have a category for the political party, it will be a far smaller topic than Christians who happen to be Australian, and either deleting this category or making it a disambiguation category will likely to lead to confusion: someone knowing that the Christian categories are normally "NATIONALITY Christians" will likely put Australians here, and this is much more probable than someone incorrectly putting an AC partisan here or putting a Christian from Australia into the political party incorrectly.
Nyttend (
talk) 00:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The possibility that a future category for a small political party, for which there isn't a demonstrated need today, might create an ambiguity with this is not in and of itself a good reason to deviate from a standard naming convention. For one thing, even if and when the political party does warrant a category, this grouping will still be the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the category name and the political party will still be a secondary one. So this topic should remain in line with the naming convention, and the political party category (if one ever exists at all) is the one that has to be dabbed. At any rate, because the party specifically identifies its political platform with Christian social conservative values, the likelihood of there being someone who attains notability for their association with the party, but who is not personally a Christian and would thus be misfiled if they were added to this category, is effectively nonexistent.
Bearcat (
talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- The fact that a party has appropriated a name does not mean that we need to change everything else. If we do need to change (and I hope not)
Category:Christians in Australia might be the answer.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award winners
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for one winner of a minor award which would not constitute a claim of notability in and of itself. As always, every award that exists at all does not automatically get its own category the moment one former winner of it happens to have an article -- we categorize on
WP:DEFINING characteristics (i.e. ones that are central to what made the person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place), not on every single fact that might happen to appear in their biography. This is not an award that constitutes a notability claim per se -- a person would not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of winning this, if they didn't also have a stronger notability claim that passed our SNGs for the work they did to get the award.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete (1) Offends against
WP:OCAWARD, though we would normally listify. (2) I a dubious whether the one person, a prolific local historian is in fact notable.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Muskoka Conservancy Award recipients
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for winners of a minor local award which would not constitute a claim of notability in and of itself -- of the three people filed here, two have passes of our notability standards for their occupations and one's up for AFD, but nobody would ever get an article because of this award per se in the absence of any other more substantive notability claim. As always, every award that exists at all does not automatically get its own category the moment one former winner of it happens to have an article -- we categorize on
WP:DEFINING characteristics (i.e. ones that are central to what made the person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in the first place), not on every single fact that might happen to appear in their biography.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:ACC Athlete of the Year
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. –
FayenaticLondon 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF. The ACC Athlete of the Year is a marginal award relative to the careers of those involved. In many cases, the player's award is not mentioned in the body of the article itself.
TM 15:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete (1) Offends against
WP:OCAWARD, though we would normally listify. (2) I a dubious whether the one person, a prolific local historian is in fact notable.Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: please would you clarify your comment? It sounds as if you looked at a small category, but this one has over 70 people in it. –
FayenaticLondon 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Clarify -- We do not allow awards categories. The normal outcome is listify if necessary and delete. My second comment must have referred to another CFD.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
AFL player categories
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. –
FayenaticLondon 21:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no reason to keep the AFL stuff separate. These players are as much a part of the history of the NFL teams as more modern players. Also see discussion
here. Notable things we aren't discussing here include merging categories associated with the same team before and after a name change and the Los Angeles Chargers business, which is going to be a mess because the name was used twice with a great amount of history between the usages. ~
Rob13Talk 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support the mergers per the nominator's rationale.
Cbl62 (
talk) 08:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Ejgreen77: Yes, but the NFL team is clearly the primary topic there and
Category:Buffalo Bills players already exists. If the latter should be renamed, we can always consider that later, but for now a merge into the existing category makes sense. ~
Rob13Talk 18:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, minus the ones mentioned by WikiOriginal-9.
Lizard (
talk) 23:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)reply
@
BU Rob13: Wouldn't we then need to place every player in these categories into
Category:American Football League players? Since if the AFL team cats (which are child cats of that one) are merged, AFL player pages will be left without any cats to signify that they played in the AFL.
Lizard (
talk) 23:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Thats a good point. Yes, we should also merge there. I have no problem directly applying that category to all AFL players. ~
Rob13Talk 01:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: for discussion about the second merge target, which currently specifies that it should not hold player articles directly
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
General Support but -- I apply the rule "one franchise: one category". We have a long established principle for alumni categories that merged or renamed institutions over alumni categories for predecessors. The results can look a little odd. Here we seem to have teams that have been renamed that get a separate category for the same franchise, but if we apply the principle here New England Patriots would also be merged into the first of these.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: In some cases, AFL teams exist that only played in the AFL. For those teams, a team category is appropriate. We should later restructure the AFL players by team category, probably by upmerging to get rid of it. This whole thing is a bit of a mess, I agree. Personally, I find it more undesirable to split the players of one franchise across two categories than to have only some AFL-specific team categories. ~
Rob13Talk 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Evil Minds
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 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:List of Notable Brahmins
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:NONDEF, longstanding consensus against categorization by caste. Also happens to be currently empty following
Sitush's removal of the list articles previously in this category. Unclear what further purpose it would serve.
Alcherin (
talk) 11:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. In addition to nominator's rationale, it bears note that categories for people are not supposed to contain the words "list of" — we categorize pages that are lists in "Lists of...", but we do not use the singular "List" in the name of a category for the individual people or things that might be added to a list. And categories are also not permitted to include the word "notable" in their names, either; in principle, notability is inherent to whether or not an article should even exist at all, so it's not necessary to insert "notable" into the name of a category.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Aside from what Bearcat said (that's enough for deletion), this would warrant renaming to
Category:Brahmin people (or something of the sort) if it were kept;
Category:Brahmins exists but is meant for the caste group as a whole, not individual biographies, according to a note at the top of the page.
Nyttend (
talk) 00:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brahmin rulers
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. –
FayenaticLondon 23:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise individuals by caste, which is what this cat and its subcategories are doing.
Sitush (
talk) 11:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Some examples of past discussions regarding caste categorisation of people can be seen linked at
User:Sitush/Common#Castecats. -
Sitush (
talk) 12:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Rather pointless intersection. Did rulers even come from the Brahmins? I thought rulers were members of a
lower group of castes, and the Brahmin castes were priests and other religious leaders.
Nyttend (
talk) 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Some did but a lot depends on how you define "ruler". For example, there were some
zamindars and the
Peshwas are often claimed to be rulers. FWIW, there were even rulers from the
Shudra castes, which are at the bottom of the Vedic varna system. It's a messy topic area. -
Sitush (
talk) 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Battles involving the Brahmins
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles in this category seem to be here simply because they involved the
Maratha Empire; with the exception of the
Third Anglo-Maratha War, none of the articles even mention the presence of
Brahmins, let alone support that statement with a reliable source. Furthermore I don't think a category of battles involving a specific
Indian caste is necessary - it doesn't appear to be a notable intersection of topics either (
WP:OCEGRS).
Alcherin (
talk) 11:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Since they involved in the battles i created the category just like rajputs. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abhiran (
talk •
contribs)
Category:Battles involving the Rajputs contains battles involving the Rajput states and groups, and the articles in that category always contain supported statements and significant coverage of the role of the Rajputs in those battles.
Alcherin (
talk) 11:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete It is a pointless intersect created by someone who is seemingly obsessed with promoting Brahmins -
Sitush (
talk) 11:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Not useful and also erroneous.--
Cpt.a.haddock (
talk) (please ping when replying) 15:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Economic history of Amsterdam
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, there are very few cities that have their own economic history subcategory and Amsterdam doesn't have enough content to have one too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
There was quite a bit of economics in my Master's program. Is that relevant?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Marcocapelle, how well do you know the great importance of the Netherlands (the Dutch Republic in particular) in history of world economy and finance?
Zingvin (
talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017
Why asking these personal questions? If you know any other articles in Wikipedia about the economic history of Amsterdam, just add them to these categories and from there on we'll talk further.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The content of this category appears to fit the latter category as well, though merely by coincidence.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:6th-century Islam
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, recategorising the timeline. –
FayenaticLondon 19:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete as anachronistic, Islam started around 610 while 6th century ended in 600.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
While that article shouldn't exist, for the same reason as the category shouldn't exist, I have no objection to the proposed recategorization.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete though I support the timeline - this is a step beyond.
Johnbod (
talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan
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:soft delete. –
FayenaticLondon 23:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:if kept, rename, pre-Islamic is anachronistic terminology. By the way, this is (still) without objection against merging / deleting the category, see also
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, as Buddhism is totally unrelated to much of Pakistan's pre-Islamic history; see
Mohenjo-daro for example.
Nyttend (
talk) 04:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not against creating a Hindu category, but the one article in the nominated category is about Buddhist heritage.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
How are the Hindus relevant? This is pre-Hindu by a very long way. The entirety of
Category:Prehistoric Pakistan could go into this category, for example.
Nyttend (
talk) 11:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Support though not for the reasons the nom gives exactly; pre-Islamic is not anachronistic terminology, but we already have "prehistoric" and "ancient" categories, & the single article covers a mainly Buddhist period, which we don't have one for.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This is an unnecessary fork of
Category:Ancient history of Pakistan. However the sole content is an article on a district, which has history at many periods and thus does not belong in the subject category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 11:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(as nom) That is a correct observation, I would support delete too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.