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 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given: WP:OC#VENUE. Sporting venues only deserve articles (and thus categories) if dedicated to a particualr sport. These are largely multi-purpose or borowed venues. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 20 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:Defunct professional wrestling venues in the United States[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. MER-C 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given: WP:OC#VENUE. Sporting venues only deserve articles (and thus categories) if dedicated to a particualr sport. These are largely multi-purpose or borowed venues. Outcome should be the same as previou item. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 20 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:Works originally published in periodicals[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is "serials" a word other people encounter very often? As an American English speaker, I don't hear that word too often. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No—many were published in one edition of a magazine. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This also includes works originally published in magazines, and magazines are periodicals. Also, how can the parent category be nominated but not also the by-country subcategories? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vast majority of the articles included in this category and its subcategories have been published in magazines. There is a specific subcategory for the minority published in newspapers. Dimadick (talk) 09:19, 29 August 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 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:People educated at Integrated College Dungannon[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete without prejudice: Integrated schools are wonderful in Northern Ireland; however this category has contained but one name since it was created. Doesn't really serve any valid purpose. Quis separabit? 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We do normally allow alumni categories for high schools, which is what this concerns. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but does every school needs a list of alumni, especially when there is but one notable to be listed? Quis separabit? 11:55, 22 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.
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: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one (near-epynomous) article in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikiproject India about nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 18 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.
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 it only contains its epynomous article (about a historical kingdom) and a child category (with modern cities in the region). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikiproject India about nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 18 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.
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: upmerge, a "civilization" category is not meaningful as a child category, it only makes sense at the very top of a tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that does not make sense to me, why would it only be useful at the top, instead of as a subcategory? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nominator's rationale does not make sense to me. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to do it this way -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A civilization category may contain just anything, it's not limiting the scope of Category:Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Actual museum displays under the topic "Islamic civilization" have shown it covers at least anything produced by Muslims anywhere. It may also at times be used to cover activities of non-Muslims in societies that are labeled "Islamic". However that is always an extremely controversial claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The category includes only two articles and is redundant to its subcategory "Islamic culture". It also seems to be the only category in Category civilizations defined by religion alone. Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 29 August 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: merge, the two categories obviously have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are two separate categories with some overlap. Category:Islamic philosophers are philosophers who specialize in Islamic philosophy, while Category:Muslim philosophers are philosophers who are Muslim. A similar situation exists between Category:Philosophers of Judaism and Category:Jewish philosophers...the former is the subject of the philosophy is the religion while the latter is the religious identity of the philosopher. For example, one can be a Islamic philosopher and not be Muslim and one can be a Muslim philosopher who doesn't focus on Islam but studies logic or political philosophy. LizRead!Talk! 23:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Wouldn't the latter be a case of a trivial intersection? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 27 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.
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: upmerge, the scope of this category does not seem any more specific than the scope of its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't "views" be interpretation based on a viewpoint? Which is different from doctrine and belief -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the proposal does not suggest that Category:Sunni views or Category:Shia views would be redundant. If there are views only applicable to certain groups of Muslims or certain Muslim individuals, I'd be happy to keep or subcategorize that. But the category as is seems to contain articles that are applicable to Islam in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category as it stands includes articles on views of Muslims on anything from Alexander the Great and Jesus to slavery. Who or what defines "doctrine" here? A doctrine has to be a central belief of a group, religious or otherwise. I doubt these are defining doctrines of the entire religion and its diverse followers. Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right there are a few articles here, e.g. about slavery, that definitely do not belong in "belief and doctrine" but rather in Category:Islam and society (in which category these few articles already are). So that would require a bit of purging. In general, however, I find it difficult to distinguish between "views" and "belief" if it comes to the more religious subjects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, but split as needed between Category:Islamic belief and doctrine and Category:Islam and society. A generic "views" category is not particularly helpful, I don't think—it should be divided into categories for religious beliefs and a looser category for general Islamic attitudes towards things in society or history. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:19, 1 September 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. MER-C 13:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename by removing the word "main", which does not add any value. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikiproject India about nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support -- It also eliminates the POV question as to which are "main" and which are not. I assume that the rest will be NN kingdoms, so that they will not have articles to be categorised anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 20 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.
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: rename (and merge one). Less ambiguous names and C2C to parent category. Some kingdoms weren't even in India, they were in Central Asia (the north-western ones) or China/Tibet (the northern ones). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a much needed task but we often see drive-by editors conflating history with mythology and changing categories and I think some of these categories started off as historical cats and have now been filled with mythological entries resulting in the need for a rename. I think Category:Empires and kingdoms of India is in need of a better structure to avoid such problems in future. Also, Category:Kingdoms south to the Vindhya ranges shouldn't be merged entirely to the southern cat, there's some that should be in the western cat, so a selective merge would be needed on that.—SpacemanSpiff 16:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On looking through I'm not entirely sure if the merge should happen this way or if southern should be merged under south of Vindhyas. Nasikya would go to the west, but Konkana would fit under both West and South, Anupa wouldn't fit in either (the Vindhyas were a defining geographic marker for those texts and standard north-south differentiation doesn't apply directly). I'll try to pick up some reading over the next few days and comment, unless someone like @Abecedare: can provide a better view immediately. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely support the renaming from "of ancient India" to "in the Mahabharata", since that is what the cats are being used for in any case, and the renaming will (somewhat) help avoid mixing of mythological/mytho-historical and true historical entities. The problem Spaceman mentions about the regional classification are true, and perhaps unavoidable. Is there a reason we even need to classify them as such, ie is simply upmerging them all to Category:Kingdoms in the Mahabharata an option? I don't offhand know of a (reliable) reference classifying all the kingdoms, but will take a look. Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikiproject India about nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Comment kinda oppose the idea, as there may be mix up of myths, epics and actuall history! Shrikanthv (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Kingdoms in the Mahabharata and (if necessary) purge. If the category includes any known from other historical sources, it might be better to re-create a category for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incline to "Merge all" as they all have only one parent category. Hugo999 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator) I would be okay with a "merge all" as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 21 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.
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per WP:STRONGNAT should use local variant of English. Belize uses British/Commonwealth English. Parent category is Organisations based in Belize. Standard practice is to used 'based in' as well AusLondonder (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Belize consistently uses British spellings. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 22 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.
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per WP:STRONGNAT should use local variation of English. Grenada uses British/Commonwealth English AusLondonder (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Grenada consistently uses British spellings. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did try that but User:Armbrust opposed and effectively vetoed the nominations, which meant they went stale. AusLondonder (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell that wasn't their reason for opposing, they didn't dispute the actual change AusLondonder (talk) 05:48, 23 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.
