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 rename. – FayenaticLondon 12:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:59, 23 April 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.
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 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion
Nominator's rationale: Although I think the "citation needed" tag is vastly overused, the term "narcissism" should be applied carefully, and never without a citation. Many people confuse narcissism, a serious personality disorder, with vanity, a mere character trait. Narcissism has to be diagnosed by an expert. On top of that, another user already felt the category was underpopulated, so renaming it into "songs about vanity" would hardly be worth the trouble. Steinbach (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, most articles in this category don't even mention the term narcissism at all (and if they do mention it, it's questionable if the term is properly used). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On one level, it would seem to be a bona fide member of Category:Songs by theme, though I know that's damning with faint praise. It does indeed seem non-defining. DeleteShawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and non-defining. Neutralitytalk 19:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons above, plus a few more. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:41, 26 April 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.
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 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only two articles in this franchise which are both linked to each other, making this category now unnecessary. KirtZJ (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better not to have, linking was required and it was done. Hajme 17:02, 22 April 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:Moveable holidays (manual dates for 2014)[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. This is the only way I can read consensus from the discussion. Nobody seems to oppose it, and, indeed, if the category is kept, permanent maintenance would be needed, and nobody volunteered.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purge, because there are quite a number of holidays in this category that are fixed according to a non-Gregorian calendar (e.g. Hindu calendar). Also e.g. Advent is in it (which ought to be in the Christmas-date based holidays). It is not possible to purge the category manually, this may have something to do with the template, I don't know.
Rename because 2014 is outdated by now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the word length is still too big. Hajme 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What would be your alternative? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do people see this category tree as defining or accurate? These holidays don't really "move" so much as they aren't on a fixed Gregorian day and month. Quds Day is always on the last Friday in Ramadan, thanksgiving is always on the fourth Thursday in November, no one is throwing a dart at a calendar to pick the day. If we really do think this is defining, the rival Category:Holidays and observances by scheduling category tree seems like a more accurate container to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, being the nominator, I'd say:
- Accurate: not so much (all fixed holidays according to a non-Gregorian calendar should be excluded).
- Already also in the rival tree: highly likely insofar accurate (e.g. Advent and Good Friday).
Honestly, I wouldn't even oppose deleting this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OCMISC. This really seems to be a miscellaneous category for ones don't fit into other groups. Although it's not perfect, the Category:Holidays and observances by scheduling tree at least tries to group holidays but what they are, not what they are not.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I created deletion proposals for additional categories involving holidays. Your thoughts (pro/con/other) are encouraged at the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Since most of the world uses the Gregorian calendar, feasts that are not on a fixed date or a fixed day of a certain month, should be regarded as moveable feasts. Advent is fixed as the fourth Sunday before 25 December. Thanksgiving likewise. UK bank holidays are the first of last Monday in certain months. Easter, on the other hand is detrermined from a lunar calendar, that has diverged from the related Jewish calendar: it was once the Sunday after the Jewish passover Sabbath. Ramadan seems to move around the year, sometimes coming in high summer, sometimes in the depths of winter, presumably because the Islamic year does not match the actual year of about 365.25 days; it is certainly moveable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather take the category from the perspective of the religion/culture of the feast, so if it's a Hindu feast it's on a fixed date on the Hindu calendar, not so much on a movable date on the Gregorian calendar. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: like other holiday categories, this is populated from template:Infobox holiday. If there is a consensus to delete or rename it, that template will need to be amended. – FayenaticLondon 12:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this was only set up for 2014 and apparently did not prove useful as a maintenance category. – FayenaticLondon 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw that opinion. Apparently the intention would be to roll it forward and replace with a 2015 category if the date2015 parameter was not set in Template:Infobox holiday. – FayenaticLondon 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would - stronger than before - plea for delete to replace the original nomination. The entire tree of Category:Holidays suggests really needing quite some permanent maintenance, not only because of this year 2014 to be replaced by 2015, but also because of some (hidden) maintenance categories in the tree. Maintenance doesn't actually take place, however, because the categories have been created by User:Docu who has been inactive for more than a year and apparently nobody is taking this over from him/her. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 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.
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 concensus for deletion. A rename proposal was made, and no objections were brought for it other than plain outright deletion reqiests, so Rename to Category:Newman musical family. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The articles should be (and those I checked are) in categories such as Category:American classical violinists (what they are notable for) which groups them with articles about similar topics. The family relationships can be (and afiacs are) covered by links in the article text. DexDor(talk) 07:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REname per Revelation Direct and JackofOz. There seem to be enough of them to merit a category. The present name risks picking up unrelated people who share this selatively common surname, which we would not want. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 25 April 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.
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 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe this really is a "type" of film, in the way other the categories are, and I don't believe it's sufficiently defining for categorization purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small scope and disputed. Hajme 13:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Lenticel(talk) 02:23, 27 April 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.
