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.
Delete This will basically boil down to "someone did genealogy of this person, possibly after their death, and determined that it might be possible that they had converso ancestry." It is not a defining attribute of the people involved. I see the good of descent categories, but they need to be applied more in line with defining characteristic rules, and the very nature of this is that it is not a defining characteristic of those involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also Category:American people of Converso descent. The conversion of Jews and Muslims in Spain and Portugal took place about 500 years ago. To have one converso among one's ancestors is hardly remarkable. Portugal explicitly destroyed all records of who were "New Christians", so that in many cases this will be uncertain anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 26 July 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.
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The result of the discussion was:keep (withdrawn). – FayenaticLondon 20:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to make it consistent with leading article and consistent with parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Last Judgement (as the name suggests) is not the only judgement in Christianity - see for example Particular judgment, which begins: "Particular judgment, according to Christian eschatology, is the Divine judgment that a departed person undergoes immediately after death, in contradistinction to the general judgment (or Last Judgment) of all people at the end of the world." This edit by the nom was a mistake, which should be put back. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. However, one could also argue that this Particular judgment article can be classified in Category:Afterlife in Christianity instead of in Category:Judgment (Christianity) so that the remaining articles are consistently about Last Judgement. The nomination rationale remains valid in the latter scenario. While if we leave it as it is, there is no leading article related to the category and there is an inconsistent naming with the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:@Editor2020: Exactly, and this category now mainly contains articles about Islamic Last Judgement. So what about the Christian Last Judgement articles? I think it is very strange to have them not findable under Last Judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And whose fault is that [1]???? Yet another of your tinkering edits. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit lost now, I removed Judgment, not Last Judgment, didn't I? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is not really needed, the only thing needed is to restore the child/parent relationship between Judgment (Christianity) and Last Judgment, since the large amount of articles in the Christian judgment category is about the Last Judgment. As mentioned above, the exception article 'Particular judgment' can be classified in Category:Afterlife in Christianity instead of in Category:Judgment (Christianity) so that the remaining articles are consistently about Last Judgement in Christianity. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 27 July 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:58, 28 July 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.
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:Delete. Is a prize, scholarship, educational institution, building and so on named for an individual something we categorize by? The introduction reads ...several monuments, prizes, scholarships, and educational institutions have been named in honor of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That seems to cover everything bearing his name, which is not an object inclusion criteria. Also this rolls up into Category:Monuments and memorials by person tree and I'm not sure inclusion there is anything named after someone as opposed to a purpose built monument or memorial. This is not the only category like this, just a start place to gauge support. I did consider a purge to just monuments and memorials, but this could well empty the category. Most of the articles I have seen this on do not mention the significance of the building name. I did not survey the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Answer to your first question is; evidently yes, and that's why you are here to get it deleted. Your rationale isn't clear to me. Why can't stuff named after him not be categorized together? Isn’t naming something after him enough of a memorial attribute? What should the stuff have more in it to be categorized thus? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We normally delete categories that are named after something since that is generally not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If something is incorrectly categorised here just edit that page why delete the category itself.Shyamsunder (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty close to categorization by same name. Who something is named for is not a defining characteristic in all cases. This is especially true because many institutions change their name while remaining the same institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not exactly the same as grouping by similar name (e.g. "Sports events with super in the title") as the memorials do have an intentional and direct link to the subject and thus one another. Also, if this category tree is deleted then it will simply force the contents up to the eponymous categories. I don't really see a better way to handle this content, as banned its inclusion in the parent category would barely be enforceable. SFB 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and Keep A few of these articles appear to just be named after him and should be removed, but this still leaves a viable category.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Normally we would not allow categorisation by shared name. Possibly Gandhi was important enough to be an exception. Certainly purge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 26 July 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.
