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.
MER-C 11:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - per nom. "Year" is clearly more accurate.--
JayJasper (
talk) 22:40, 4 June 2015 (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:History of religions school
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The result of the discussion was:nomination withdrawn.
MER-C 11:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, only an eponymous article in the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Populate -- This term refers to a collection of theologians at Gottingen Univoiersity in 1890s. The one article will be appropriate as a main article for a category covering the members, a number of who have articles. I may need to be renamed
Category:History of religions school membersPeterkingiron (
talk) 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Of course it can be populated, you're entirely right. Withdraw nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:21, 30 May 2015 (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.
1786 elections
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: All of these categories either contain each other or the article
New York gubernatorial election, 1786. This appears to be the only article on 1786 elections in Wikipedia.
Origamiteⓣⓒ 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep the article at least in one relevant category. For now, the most obvious choice is to merge it into
Category:1786 elections and delete the other 5 categories. While
Category:1786 elections will contain only one article, there are many other years in the 18th century also with only one election article or very few articles, so it'll require a broader 18th century nomination to improve that structure.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge all but one or two. This is another case of putting up a slender tree (or rather a twig) for the sake of parenting an article. At the top of this tree is elections by year, which is split into North America and Europe. I cannot see the merits of a continential split at this period: there were far too few countries that held elections. I would suggest that the parent should be
Category:18th-century elections by country, with US, UK, France, etc subcats. Until these are better populated, no child categories should be allowed. We might also keep
Category:1786 elections as a worldwide category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I like the idea of 18th-centure elections by country, but how many elections were there in 1786? There are currently no articles on them in the encyclopedia. Also, for the sake of completeness, I'd like to point out that I've put up for PRODding
List of elections in 1786, a pseudo-disambiguation page which, again, only contains the New York article.
Origamiteⓣⓒ 03:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
If those would be country categories for the whole century they can be decently populated. The Great Britain subcat already exists with some 20 articles. I like the idea but it needs a separate nomination to delete all separate year election categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Are you talking about separate years for countries, or top level (e.g.
Category:1786 elections)? I would strongly object to any attempts to delete the latter, but would be open to the country-by-country cats going.
Number57 12:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
As stated, I think that's a very bad idea.
Number57 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
My object was to limit the number of slender twigs on a tree. US Presidents and governors are elected every four years; there is an election for the senate and congress every two. In UK, there were general elections every 7 years at this period; every 5 after 1832, with by-elections for casual vacancies. I am not sure about other countries as there were few democracies at that period. My proposal I that we have "18th-century elections by country" and allow categories like "1786 elections" (or possibly instead "1780s elections") as a worldwide category.
Category:18th-century elections in the United States should also be allowed. At the same time we abolish the continental level. If the 18th-century US category gets more than a couple of dozen articles, we could consider splitting it. However the current trend is towards merging thin thread annual category trees into ones covering decades or even centuries. Many of the colonies had legislatures. I would suggest one category of all the Continental colonies' legislatures; and another for other British colonies, perhaps covering 17th and 18th centuries together. With more democratic polities in the 19th century, we will probably need decade categories, rather than centuries.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:15, 5 June 2015 (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:Cossacks in Ukraine
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:Merge. Recently added redundant category, populated with a couple of articles which just as well fit the old category. I don't see any reason to split hairs. Serves no purpose Eg does one want to have "Don Cossacks in Ukraine" or "Ukrainian Cossacks in America"? I doubt one is going to do such hair splitting of categories, up to "Ukrainian Cossacks in Ukraine". -M.Altenmann
>t 14:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge -- The problem is that the target (and to some extent the subject) is a mixture of articles on the Cossacks generally and bio-articles on individual people. The latter should perhaps be in
Category:Ukrainian Cossack people.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
I guess (while viewing the contents) that this kind of split was exactly what the creator of the nominated category was after. Let's rename this category to
Category:History of Cossacks in Ukraine to disambiguate the two categories more clearly.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge to avoid the issues of implying ethnicity in a time and place where it will be contested.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep alongside
Category:Cossacks in Russia, or Rename per
Marcocapelle. Do not merge; it seems to me that it is worth distinguishing biographies from other historical articles. There seems to be no standard naming pattern for such historical categories (cf. the hierarchy within
Category:History by ethnic group), but adding "History of..." would at least make the purpose clearer. Disclosure: I have added several members from the sub-category. –
FayenaticLondon 20:39, 26 July 2015 (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:Films directed by Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
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.
MER-C 11:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Do we "really" need this category? I mean the person just got into feature films and the user just created the category with one feature film in the list and one documentry.
Umais Bin Sajjad (
talk) 13:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep That does not seem like a valid reason for deletion. She did not "just get into feature films". She is notable as a filmmaker and has directed several documentary films, some of which are notable for stand-alone articles. She won an
Oscar for the documentary
Saving Face, and is the only Pakistani till date to get that award. So I believe it meets notability. Mar4d (
talk) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep She won Oscar so she is more than notable enough and she is young so she can direct more films in near future.
Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the long-established category tree of films by director, and
WP:FILMCAT, which states "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article". LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:55, 29 May 2015 (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.
Hidden 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:delete. –
FayenaticLondon 14:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Alternative 1 Collectively unhide these categories, without prejudice against future merge or delete proposals for individual categories.
Alternative 2 Collectively delete these categories.
Alternative 3 A mix of alternative 1 and 2: delete the first category per
WP:NONDEF, unhide the others.
Nominator's rationale: there is no point in hiding any of these categories. Either they're useful and should be visible or they're not useful and should be deleted. I like alternative 3 the best, but alternative 1 and 2 are okay as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Project Holidays has been notified about this nomination. The creator of these categories is not currently active.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The value of the "TBD" category would indeed be as a hidden maintenance category, for editors to review and improve articles which are missing the necessary information to be included in one of the "specified length" categories instead. But the "specified length" categories have no particular reason for being hidden as maintenance categories — they should either be unhidden as mainspace categories if consensus deems them useful, or just deleted. My own preference would be to delete them all — to me, the length of any given holiday or observance isn't a substantive point of commonality between otherwise unrelated events, but is essentially just
WP:OCAT on a superficially shared characteristic. The two-day category, for instance, contains events as diverse as
Hillbilly Days,
Gawai Dayak,
Independence Day (Turkmenistan) and the
Trinidad and Tobago Carnival, which is an absurd set of topics that have nothing in common besides how long they happen to be. And if we delete those, then the "TBD" loses its reason for existing as well — it has value only if we're keeping all of the others. Delete all.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:18, 31 May 2015 (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.
A few more award 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:delete all. –
FayenaticLondon 14:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:OCAWARD, per
WP:NONDEF, per
previous discussion and many discussions before. The categories mainly contain heads of state, nobility and politicians to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete most -- King Dmitar Zvonimir seems to granted by Croatia to its own citizens and is thus evidence of their notability. Charles III is somewhat older and I am less sure about it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Regarding King Dmitar: though also given to its own citizens, it's really not a defining characteristic across the articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete all - nondefining award-cruft.
Neutralitytalk 17:48, 1 June 2015 (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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (two dates)
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.
MER-C 11:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete because the three articles in the category have nothing in common with each other. One article concerns two dates because of a time zone difference, one article concerns two dates because it is a night celebration, one article is a plain two different dates (4 days in between). Also delete the category per
WP:SMALLCAT.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
delete per nom. I keep wondering whether
Easter should be here, for one thing.
Mangoe (
talk) 21:39, 29 May 2015 (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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (same week each 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.
MER-C 11:17, 7 June 2015 (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:Aditi Singh Sharma 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 delete (G5) by
Anthony Bradbury.
MER-C 11:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Was not sure how to tag this-but this category is basically the same as
Arijit Singh songs from what I can tell.
Wgolf (
talk) 03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support deleting but don't agree on the rationale. It concerns a song sung by two different singers. A more appropriate rationale is
WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:19, 29 May 2015 (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:19th-century introductions in Scotland
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:upmerge/delete as below. –
FayenaticLondon 19:46, 18 June 2015 (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.