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 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Two entry category with limited expectations of growth at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just made it today. Probably could have resolved this between ourselves. Category is better populated now. czar⨹ 04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it still needs to be discussed. Are all participants defined by being a part of this? The listed legal action seems to be about a book and some people and not the convention. There may still not be enough or the inclusion criteria needs a big tightening up. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I included those whose pages shows a strong affiliation with the convention. Most of the subjects were also participants in Jason Scott's DEF CON documentary. czar⨹ 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bio articles should be placed in categories such as Category:American technology writers, not categories like this for things they have some connection with. DexDor (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete. The subjects of this category are connected by strong, definitive association with the DEF CON event. This connection is prominent in most of the mentioned articles. The nom's conditions (of the cat being underpopulated) were corrected. czar⨹ 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear that would make the convention defining for any of those articles. So deletion would still be justified. 24.180.26.170 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is "that"? The "definitive" part is that the subjects are defined by their connection to the DEF CON event, and their roles in the event are mentioned prominently on their pages. czar⨹ 04:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that a strong affiliation is not the same as defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 29 March 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:rename and purge to subcat; as there is not a strong consensus on the name, I will rename the category Category:Religious (Catholicism) to match the new name of the article Religious (Catholicism), with no bar to early re-nomination if this is unsatisfactory. It seems better to include some form of "Catholic" in the name than to use potentially ambiguous alternatives. – FayenaticLondon 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Somewhat abstract and overlapping category without actual parent category as many Catholic aspects would fit there. The articles inside have also other categories. Category:Roman Catholic Church seems to have a decent set of subcats for alternative merging target, if this isn't a good one. Brandmeistertalk 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with no objection against delete. Before merging I would at least recommend to remove the many Scapular articles that have their own Category:Scapulars. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Religious vows and other such. What I think is being misunderstood here is the usage of the word "religious". In this case it doesn't merely mean someone or something related to a religion, but rather religious orders. - jc37 02:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I strongly oppose the merge, but I Support renaming to Category:Consecrated life, per the discussion below. - jc37 15:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, just from reading over several articles in the cat. That said, it could use some cleanup. For example, I think it would probably make more sense to subcat Category:Scapulars than to add them individually like this. - jc37 08:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first category Category:Religious (Catholic) life to match our article Religious (Catholic) and keep practice among the Religious (Catholic) folks separate from the spirituality that may be either practiced or embodied by the Catholic laity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Carlossuarez46, I think we may want to go a step up the tree, as it were, and rename to Category:Consecrated life. (See Consecrated life.) It fits better in the category scheme (it's parent includes both the religious and the secular institutes), and removes the need for disambiguation, and allows for further splitting if necessary in the future. - jc37 15:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consecrated life seems to almost, but not exactly, encompass Religious (Catholic), but it seems that the subcategories that belong to the latter, but not contain those parts of the former which are not part of the latter. Do we need an extra rung? Hard to say... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fair solution for everybody when we follow Carlossuarez' rename and follow Jc37's cleanup. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 20 February 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.
Support per previous comments about political units not being good dividers for species. More useful list format is already present so category can be deleted. SFB 21:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per much precedent. Gib. is far too small to need a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support few bird species, presumably, cannot leave Gibraltar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 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.
Nominator's rationale: Junior competition is not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALLJMHamo (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we normally only have categories for senior, top-level international competitions. GiantSnowman 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining tournament for a player. SFB 21:21, 15 February 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:nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename based on the current content, all articles are about cities including their (Greek) history, but they contain hardly any info about archaeological sites. The target name fits nicely with its parent Category:Greek colonies by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are some issues going on here that aren't addressed by the nomination. The main category Category:Greek colonies frames itself as an Ancient level category, but at face value there is no reason to assume this (and exclude Byzantine-era colonies for example). The Greek colonies tree should probably be Category:Ancient Greek colonies instead. At that point we have to question the purpose of what distinction we are actually making between "colonies" and "sites". Also note the existence of Category:Greek colonies in Russia with a child Category:Ancient Greek sites in Russia, whose contents are all colonies (as the tree suggests). SFB 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My general impression is that there is a huge amount of these articles both in the "Archaeological sites" tree and in the "Ancient cities" tree that are actually mainly about cities ('colonies' in this case) and not or hardly about archaeological sites. The Libyan category is an illustration of this general impression. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. There is a distinction between the history of ancient cities and archaeological sites, which may not specifically relate to cities (or colonies). Peterkingiron (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that there is a distinction between the two! However in Libya we don't have enough material supporting an Ancient Greek sites category, while the articles in this category are actually about cities with a history as a Greek colony. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Marcocapelle: does Athrun, Libya belong in this category? Not a rhetorical question - I don't presume to know. The article seems to imply that it may be Erythrum, but never says so - and I have looked for some reliable source to indicate the connection, but have found only contrary evidence. If it isn't Erythrum, it likely was not a colony. Was it even an "ancient" Greek site? The article seems to indicate Byzantine prominence, but that does not foreclose prior Greek antecedents which if not colonial remain an ancient "Greek site" which would merit retaining the distinction that the nominator acknowledges exists but we lack any non-colony sites (except, perhaps, Athrun). Ideas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either, but at least it's a town and not a site. Just for clarification, I haven't meant that all these current Libyan articles would fit in the Greek colonies tree, I merely meant to say that for the majority of articles Greek colonies is much more appropriate than archaeological sites. So, in conclusion, even after renaming there may still be a need for purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To make things more complex, looking at a google search, I get the impression maybe our article should be at Al Athrun, Libya.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Athrun was apparently established during the rule of the Byzantine Empire. I am not sure if that would make it ancient Greek at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 7 March 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:Armenia under-21 international footballers[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. MER-C 12:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is really unnecessary as there is already a category for Armenia international footballers. If this is not deleted, then more needless category will be made like Armenia U-19, U18, U17, and so forth. For Armenian footballers in general, we have the category "Armenian footballers". Now if they are more notables who have played for their respective national team, then you could add "Armenia international footballers." The rest are unnecessary. With that, you might as add a "Armenian amateur footballers." I find it unnecessary multiple subcategories when there is a category that fits all. Hovhannes Karapetyan 02:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard category for under-21 (i.e. highest youth level) internationals, as Xaris333 says. GiantSnowman 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I don't think having played for a country at a non-senior level is a definitive enough feature to warrant a category. Those players who have competed at this level usually don't have anything much more in common than another high level player who never played for that national age category. On that basis, I think those subjects don't warrant their own internal navigation structure. However, I do think a this is useful information to have on Wikipedia, but one that would be much better suited to a list format, where we can quantify things like number of appearances, date of first appearance etc which brings the context which makes this grouping relevant. Obviously, I'd be much happier to have this debate at a tree-level, as this rationale is not Armenia-specific. SFB 21:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Xaris333 said already, this is a valid category, nothing wrong with it. JMHamo (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- The question is whether junior level players are notable at that stage. I suspect that they are not. If so, we should not have the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Xaris333 and GiantSnowman. – Michael (talk) 21:52, 22 February 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.
czar ⨹ 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)