Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 2 August 4 >

August 3[edit]

Category:Vampires in manga[edit]

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/merge. – Fayenatic London 23:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: My reasoning is at WT:ANIME#Vampires in anime... and manga. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No brainer"? How so? Did you looked at the discussion? We have on Category:Anime and manga by topic: Dinosaur anime and manga, Ninja anime and manga, Zombie anime and manga, etc. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I read it as something like "no brain"... but I didn't know this slang... Thanks, erachima... ~embarassed~. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per established category convention. Also, Gabriel, "no brainer" means "obvious correct thing to do." --erachima talk 06:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge per nom. There is no article that analyzes how the style of depicting vampires in manga is notably different from depicting them in anime, especially in cases where the anime is an adaptation of the manga. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Anime comes from manga. There is no significant difference in the story line.Reawaken (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2014 (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:Recipient of Mention in Despatches[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More specific name fitting Mention in dispatches. This came up at the Speedy page but a better name does not meet the speedy renaming criteria. – Fayenatic London 19:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are only two recipients in the category. The first is an airman; the second a sailor. (1) find a better name (2) leave as it is (3) rename to Category:Mentioned in Despatches Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not defining. Not a major award, tens of thousands were mentioned in despatches. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree with Oculi it is not a defining attribute. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – creator may have believed that it was a decoration of some kind. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too common a distinction to merit a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2014 (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.

Byzantine Papacy[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: The content of the category shows an extremely big overlap with Category:Popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2014 (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.

Frankish Papacy[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 23:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: The content of the category shows an extremely big overlap with Category:Popes. The lead article is already in Category:Franks, no need to upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2014 (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.

Moths described in 2009 and other years[edit]

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: Restore and keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose reverting Category:Moths described in 2009. The category had closer to 200 species. Same thing goes with Category:Moths described in 1992 and the rest.--Mishae (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and keep – these have been emptied out of process via edits such as this one. This is a blatant bypassing of the cfd process. The emptier should bring them to cfd with a rationale for the merge and allow a discussion. (A host of categories has been similarly emptied. They should all be restored.) One which has not as yet been dismantled is Category:Animals described in 2006, which is a large category, with a large moths subcat. This should be split into further subcats, not overwhelmed by moths. Oculi (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REstore and Keep -- The offender presumably believed that date of description was NN. I disagree. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as out of process The year of description may or may not be defining for a species (I tend to think "not", since it has no effect on the species' essentials), but that debate must happen BEFORE categories are emptied where the category is not in error or defamatory, which there is no indication of the former and hardly possible for the latter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2014 (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.

Proposed railway stations in Ireland[edit]

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. I have added positive guidance about the parent categories before the existing negative guidance in WP:IRE-CATS. – Fayenatic London 07:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: The category mixes up two different countries in a parent Category:Proposed railway stations in Europe that's subdivided by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Both categories are already appropriately parented, so that merging is unnecessary. I only support all-Ireland categories where things are still organised on an all-Ireland basis. That does not apply here. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Category:Railway stations in Ireland. There's no point in picking off subcats of Category:Ireland at random. Oculi (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we first discuss this one, and extrapolate the outcome of the discussion to the rest of the Ireland tree? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • These Ireland categories have been discussed at length and with vigour over many years; see eg Hospitals in Ireland. Oculi (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I didn't know. But how should a category like this be parented then? Not to countries in Europe, because there you have the Republic of Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion and the discussion just below lead to very different statements about categorization issues regarding Ireland as an island. Are perhaps other people willing to contribute on the history of Ireland discussions on Wikipedia? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (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.

Proposed rail infrastructure in Ireland[edit]

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 per guideline. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: The category mixes up two different countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is how categories in the island of Ireland are usually arranged (as is the rail infrastructure). Oculi (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Or split) -- The WP convention is that we do not normally have all-Ireland categories. The exceptions would be things that are organised on an all-Ireland basis (e.g. trades unions and certain sports) and anything preceding partition in 1923. The RoI category should parented by a European one and the NI category by a UK one, itself a child of the European one. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion and the discussion just above lead to very different statements about categorization issues regarding Ireland as an island. Are perhaps other people willing to contribute on the history of Ireland discussions on Wikipedia? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Railway infrastructure spanning the two countries (like Transport 21) would be well sited here. SFB 21:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm overseeing something but it seems to me that Transport 21 is mainly about rail infrastructure in the Republic. Even so, international railways that are crossing a national border don't justify a common category for the two countries together, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IRE-CATS. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 12 August 2014 (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:Proposed rail infrastructure in <<country>>[edit]

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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT (1 or 2 articles in a category), empty category, or foreseen empty category as a result of proposal for childcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Romania and Spain there were some articles in a Proposed public transport category, by moving these articles to Proposed rail infrastructure it is possible to save these categories. However, this immediately points to a problem: in many countries a Proposed railway lines category is lacking, so if people want to classify a Proposed railway line, they do so in Proposed public transport, not in Proposed rail infrastructure. In other words, the category structure is not in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Who knows a solution for this? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proposed public transport is too generic. Not all rail infrastructure is necessarily a form of public transport (like freight railways, signaling); Public transport operates on / uses rail infrastructure but does not always comprise the infrastructure itself. (example: A railway infrastructure provisioner like the British Network Rail maintains the rail tracks, bridges, signaling, etc., and "sells" the network capacity to train operating companies (TOCs), responsible for passenger transport, and freight operating companies.) So only particular train services belong in the proposed public transport category (when independent from the network on which they operate).
The proposed rail infrastructure and its children category tree parallels with the "existing" rail infrastructure category tree so the WP:COMMONNAME argument does not apply. In Category:Rail infrastructure by country is fully diffused (WP:DIFFUSE), even for countries having very few articles.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please react separately on the nomination (WP:SMALLCAT) and on the comment, thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the comment I wasn't referring to how it is technically organized, I was referring to many Wikipedia editors factually using Proposed public transport if there is no Proposed railway lines available (and they also may do this even if it is available), since public transport is commonly used as the umbrella term for all of it. I understand that this is less of a problem in the structure of the 'existing' railway lines, but it is a problem in the 'proposed' railway lines and any suggestion how to tackle this is welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already explained that the categories mentioned are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, so WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply. Users (accidentally) putting articles in the wrong category (instead of creating the right subcategory) doesn't justify nominating categories for merging or deleting. The categories discussed lack any proper description of what its contents should be. Apart from adding such a description the only way of maintaining a correct categorization (in particular when the status of proposed infrastructure evolves over time) is by monitoring its contents from time to time.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your observation about lacking description in these categories, that should be a start indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that 'a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme' counts in this case, since there are only 32 country childcategories in an all-country category of which 9 (as pointed out above) are very poorly populated. Besides the intention of the nomination is not to lose the category information entirely, as it simply proposes an upmerge from country to continent level. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the rail transport by country subcategories have been fully diffused into separate countries. Upmerging would be a deviation from this practice (as described in the exception for the WP:SMALLCAT policy).--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It speaks of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Only 32 countries out of many more than 100 countries doesn't sound like 'large', it means the majority of countries don't have anything to add to this tree. Besides I don't know about the overall acceptance, how can one verify that? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-categorization scheme I mention starts in Category:Rail transport by country. All of its subcategories are fully diffused, even for countries having only a few articles. It is de facto accepted by following existing practice.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2014 (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:Wikipedians with autism[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the language construction generally preferred by autistic people. It also makes sense. Principles of "person"-first language do not apply since autism is not one of the disabilities that uses it. Muffinator (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Verbose, but accurate. If the result of this discussion is no change, I'll start another one for that name. Muffinator (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Usage by two national societies I have looked at is person-first:
    • The National Autistic Society (UK): "person with autism", "individuals with an autism spectrum disorder", "children with autism", "people with autism"
    • Autism Society (U.S.A.): "people with autism", "every adult with autism"
    Major organisations such as these are, as far as I can tell, appropriate reliable sources upon which to base our usage. The examples above also support the current less verbose people-first title, since that occurs more frequently than a more long-winded alternative. --Mirokado (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name seems to be the most common in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2014 (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:Gardens by Lancelot "Capability" Brown[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is named Capability Brown, and he is known by that name. The name Lancelot "Capability" Brown is slightly disconcerting as it suggests this may be a different Capability Brown. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 3 August 2014 (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:Prehistoric Turkey[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories have the same intention. A reverse merge would also be fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (not reverse merge) -- I must have missed this one when I did a mass nom of anachronistic Turkey categories. Strictly they are not quite the same as Turkey in Europe is not Anatolia - probably part of Thrace. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not reverse - what happened in Anatolia prehistorically did not happen in Turkey. Anachronism should be avoided. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The target is clearly the better name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2014 (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:Medieval Turkey[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories have the same intention. Anatolia has a slightly better elaborated category structure than Turkey but a reverse merge would also be fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (not reverse merge). Any European items should be purged into an appropriate Byzantine category (or Ottoman one). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not reverse merge. per category discussion above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. We use Turkey to refer to the modern nation-state of that name founded in the 1920s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2014 (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.

Template:Salem-stub[edit]

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 to Template:Salemwitchtrials-stub. – Fayenatic London 12:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: This stub tag is intended not for articles about a place names Salem (there are a lot of these), not even about Salem, Massachusetts, but about trials which took place there. The topic is called Salem witch trials, not Salem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 3 August 2014 (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:Early Turkish Anatolian architecture[edit]

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, also to its other parent Category:Early Turkish Anatolia. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only one childcategory and no single articles, so it seems like this is a redundant layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2014 (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:Great Seljuq Empire[edit]

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. Note: there is also Category:Seljuk Empire, and I will move the Wikidata connections there. – Fayenatic London 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a persons category (although the category name doesn't suggest so). However, all persons in this category have already been classified in more detailed Seljuq persons categories, most of them in Category:Seljuk rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- assuming that all do have better categories (which I have not checked). A safer alternative might be to rename it to Seljuk people, but it sounds as if that is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2014 (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:Nizamid family[edit]

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. Both articles are in occupational sub-cats of the other parent, Category:People of the Seljuq Empire. – Fayenatic London 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with only two articles about a father and son, while the body text of the son's article immediately links to the father. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (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:Seljuk Turkish rulers in Anatolia[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with only two articles, one about a governor and one about a ruler of temporary independent state, so the two are quite different. Both articles are in Category:Seljuq generals already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (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:Seljuq historians[edit]

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. Note: the contents are the same two pages as in Category:Seljuq officials (kept below). – Fayenatic London 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with only two articles. Both articles are in Category:Seljuq scholars already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (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:Seljuq officials[edit]

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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with only two articles, vague category name and exactly the same contents as Category:Seljuq historians. Both articles are in Category:Seljuq scholars already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_3&oldid=1079914980"