Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 4 June 6 >

June 5[edit]

Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates[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 12:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received one of these awards is often/always a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of its recipients. For people like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King,Jr., President Barrack Obama and for many more this is hardly defining . Lists are a much better way to record this information. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't distract others from the main discussion point here is about WP:NON-DEFINING The awards are not defining for the individuals involved. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that, for example, Mother Teresa should be categorized for being on an Indian postage stamp, but not be categorized for being a Nobel laureate? DexDor (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So President Obama winning Noble prize is what defines him and similarly the Noble prize is a defining matter for Martin Luther King,Jr. and Nelson Mandela . The prize is mentioned or not is not a major consideration to decide if to keep or delete such categories .The non-mentioning can always be fixed by normal editing. The WP:NON-DEFINING is ultimate test and Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates should meet that test.Shyamsunder (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether his Nobel prize is defining of Obama (or, for example, the EU) depends on the interpretation of WP:DEFINING (which isn't a precise algorithm providing a yes/no ruling). In Obama's case, being POTUS is a defining characteristic, having a dog isn't and having a Nobel prize falls is the grey area in between (e.g. it's currently in the lead, but only after many other facts).
In such cases (IMO) it's necessary to take a step back and to consider whether the deletion would improve wp or not. Deleting the category for the award that many (e.g. in the UK) consider to be the World's highest honor whilst keeping categories for lesser awards would leave wp in a strange position - I can just imagine the (not entirely accurate) media headlines "Wikipedia deletes Nobels, but keeps award for porn stars" - and yes, that is a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The problems caused by awards categories (such as articles being in 60+ such categories) would not occur if only the very top international awards (such as the Nobels) had categories.
"The non-mentioning can always be fixed by normal editing." is incorrect; if you put "A picture of a bird appeared on an Indian postage stamp." into the lead of the Bird article I don't think it'll last long. My position (delete stamps, keep Nobels at present) is (IMO) rather more logical than yours (keep stamps, delete Nobels). DexDor (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It makes little/no sense to delete this category whilst keeping thousands of categories for much lesser awards (and, for that matter, other Nobel prizes). In the 3 articles listed in the nomination the Nobel prize is mentioned in the lead and it's unlikely that we would have an article about someone with a Nobel prize where that fact is not prominent in the article. In contrast, many awards categories contain articles that don't even mention the award they are categorized for. DexDor (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The double standards. Not unexpected .This , we editors from non-English speaking countries encounter all the times and that is what is driving many of them out and resulting in overall number of editors significantly going down over the years. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What double-standards? - I'd !vote to delete a things-on-UK-stamps category just as strongly as a things-on-Indian-stamps category. DexDor (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dubious nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and defining, per real world usage (Wikipedia is not the world, the world at large finds this defining). Also WP:POINT per DexDor -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Standards should be the same for any award category and/or any arguments. If the argument in deletion proposals for some award categories is WP:NON-DEFINING as applied equally to all its constituents, it should be maintained in all discussions. I see not all editors follow this rule of civility. It is sad to see cats on Category:Recipients of the Asan Smaraka Kavitha Puraskaram and Category:Recipients of the Kalidas Samman, two prominent Indian literary awards are proposed for deletion and the same theme is not followed for other awards. When it comes to defining all the constituents, those categories fare far better than Category:Nobel Peace Prize laureates, which features Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk together. It is a comforting thought that Wikipedia is not the world. --jojo@nthony (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will it be mentioned in the first 2 paragraphs of an obituary? Of course it will. Clearly defining. Time-wasting silly nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using Barack Obama as an example of the typical recipient supposing that all Nobel laureates should be treated similarly because the award may not be defining in his case is inaccurate. There are many peace activists who are Nobel laureates where it is not only a defining characteristic but winning the award had a pronounced effect on their work. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose being a noble laureate is notable and in many contexts might well be used as a defining characteristic. Anyone would be honoured to be introduced as a noble laureate. GregKaye 13:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 June 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:HMS Cardiff (D108)[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, but if users want to remove inappropriate articles and re-nominate, that should be allowed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of categorization is to group together similar pages (e.g. articles about ships). That isn't what this category is doing; it's grouping together articles that are related to HMS Cardiff (D108) - in effect, duplicating the links between related articles. For example the article about the Gazelle shootdown should be (and is) linked to/from the article about the ship, but is better categorized in Category:Friendly fire incidents etc. For articles like Adrian Nance, that he served on Cardiff is not a very defining characteristic (he served on many other ships/establishments) and his article is better categorized in Category:Royal Navy officers (i.e. with similar articles). DexDor (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should delete a category about HMS Cardiff, because it's "grouping together articles that are related to HMS Cardiff" ?? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being similar and being related are different things. Categorization is for the former, not the latter. DexDor (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It might be called Category:HMS Cardiff (D108) personnel and incidents, but the present name is much shorter and to the point. The argument put forward by the nom is in effect that the whole category scheme is redundant. Perhaps it is "redundant" in the technical sense of that term, but categories are very useful as a navigation aid and have been part of WP as long as I have been editing it, which is a long time. Yes, there are other appropriate categories, but it is normal for an article to have several categories. It might be objected that the personnel aspect is a WP:OC#PERF performance category, but the reason for that is to prevent category clutter for actors and TV presenters. That does not apply to naval personnel, who are normally in post for several years at a time. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "The argument put forward by the nom is in effect that the whole category scheme is redundant." - not at all; ships belong in categories for ships and naval officers in categories for naval officers. DexDor (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The argument put forward by the nom is in effect that the whole category scheme is redundant."
I think that sums up every edit I've ever seen from DexDor. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least purge to remove biography articles, a ship is not a defining characteristic of a biography. If after purging not enough contents remains, merge to parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 27 June 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:1400s 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. MER-C 12:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small single entry categories with little likelihood of growth. While these categories exist for later decades, it is not clear of the need for these or those later ones. Content by year is classified in the architecture component trees (e.g. buildings and structures) as needed. Do we really need to bring the decades and potentially years completely forward in all of the trees? This discussion did this change for the earlier centuries and is the best example to follow here. There are other related discussions which basically ended in no decision to move since multiple items were nominated. Also note that architecture is several things and as such is rather ambiguous. In the end, do we need 10 categories for 10 articles? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Merge -- There are a lot of late medieval buildings in Europe, but they go into buildings and structures completed in 14xx. They used to be in this tree, but were moved out. We are therefore left with the 15th century category containing articles on a series of styles and the decade articles. That only needs a single category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the previous discussion about 13th and 14th century architecture. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all - per nom. I'd also add that organizing by decade makes things unnecessarily confusing when a building was built over a series of years (i.e., which category or categories does a castle built from 1489-1452, and expanded in 1460, go?). This upmerge eliminates that problem. Neutralitytalk 02:10, 7 June 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:Princes of Lotharingia[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 05:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. The one article in this category is also in Category:Princes of Lorraine which seemingly serves the same purpose but is much better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Lotharingia is the Latin (or an archaic name) for Lorraine. I would have said "merge", but there is nothing that needs a merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per nom (archaic redundant category for the English-language Wiki and the article's era). GermanJoe (talk) 22:39, 6 June 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:Titles of nobility[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 on rename, but it seems that most participants here would be OK with some sort of split being performed on the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category includes not titles as duke or baron, not individual title holders as dukes, but territorial entities as duchy of Cleves‎ or duchy of Limburg‎.--Не А (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Please note that the country categories should also be nominated, e.g. Category:German titles of nobility, though except the Canadian and Australian categories that only contain individuals. After renaming the top category should also be parented to Category:Territories and the country categories should also be parented to Category:Geographic history of country. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Silly name, and ill-thought-out nom. In the British system(s) and others there is no connection at all between a title and the place it uses, and has not been for 1,000 years at least. To be "Earl Footown" it is not necessary to own the lordship or anything else, or even to have been there. This category includes many subcategories that are not related to (horrible phrase) "territorial entities". We must have some equivalent of Category:Princely states of India, though not it seems Category:Princely states of Germany - Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire exists. If a new one is needed, set it up. Don't use this ghastly style of name. The vast majority of articles under this main cat are biographies. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: Could you please have a second look? From what I've seen here the vast majority of contents is about historical regions (duchies etc) rather than biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only say LOOK HARDER. Only 3 or 4 of the 11 sub-cats have any/many territories, and these are much the smallest! Specifically despots, some dukes, some princes and prince-bishoprics, and the Wildgraviates. Look at what the duchies sub-cat actually contains. I might have said "biographies or listy articles on a title", but it makes little difference. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It varies a lot by country and even within countries. For example in France Duchy of Gascogne is clearly a history article about a historical region while Duke of Antin looks more like a title. It may be better to split the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod. "Titles of nobility" may not be the most accurate category name but the suggested new name is clumsy and I think it would be confusing to readers. On the plus side, I just found out what a Wildgraviate is. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be your alternative rename? Because the current name is definitely worse in describing the actual content of the category than the proposed name I would be open to an alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The actual content varies sharply. One alternative would be to split some of the categories into, e.g. category:Duchies (territory) and Dukedoms, which improves the English also. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on split. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 1,000 year claim for England seems a bit high. In 1020 were the noble titles in England really disassociated from location. On the other hand, many of the ones that do exist have no connection to any place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 21 June 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:Universitas 21[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 05:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an association of schools and we generally do not keep those. I would suggest creating a list, but it exists in Universitas 21. Navigation is well supported by that list and a template. While this association is mentioned in the articles that I looked at, nothing appeared to make this defining for the school hence no justification for keeping. Finally WP:CLT does not require that all three be used. It suggests being selective. Personally I think the list is all we need. I would not be bothered if the template also was deleted.Vegaswikian (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a member of this association is probably WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. it is not a prominent characteristic on the Ohio State University article). The wording at University of Glasgow ("It is currently a member ...") suggests that membership is not a permanent characteristic. We have a universities-by-country category tree that provides a comprehensive way to categorize universities. DexDor (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a recent but well-established rule that we do categorise university by the group or association of which they are a member. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Universitas 21 serves a similar purpose. The universities should be linked to that article though.Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 6 June 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:20th century in Mozambique[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: do not rename or merge. MER-C 12:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From 1498 until 1975, Mozambique was called Portuguese Mozambique (or Portuguese East Africa, or a host of other names). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a wholly unnecessary change, because there was no British Mozambique (or any other). With no ambiguity, there is no need for a more complicated name, particularly as the colony is c0-terminous with the present Republic. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed the same sort of comment as I had with the 19th century nomination further below. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. Mozambique is clear enough. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron and my comments on adding Empire to Ethiopa (cfd 22 May) and Sultanate to Zanzibar (cfd 2 June) Hugo999 (talk) 10:31, 7 June 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:Tunisian saints[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 to Category:Saints from Roman Africa (province); if any of the articles do not belong there, move them to Category:African saints. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:. The Tunisian nationality didn't exist in Antiquity.
Note: its child Category:Saints from Roman Africa (province) doesn't have to be upmerged (that's why the proposal says selectively) because it's already in Category:Roman-African saints. So the nomination actually only concerns the other child Category:Saints from the Vandal Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; they were all Romans who were persecuted immediately after the Vandal conquest. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most important is that we merge, either upmerge as proposed or downmerge per alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 27 June 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:Moroccan saints[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 to Category:Roman saints from Africa (continent) and Category:Mauretania Tingitana. If a user wants to create Category:Roman Saints from Mauretania Tingitana, that could happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge. The Moroccan nationality didn't exist in the Roman Empire.
Note: one of the target categories, Category:Roman-African saints may have been renamed to Category:Roman saints from Africa (continent) while this discussion closes. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Algerian problem has already been solved, since there is also a Numidian category for eastern Algeria. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not against this rename by all means, except that the current number of articles is quite low. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 7 June 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:19th century in Mozambique[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: do not rename (matching outcome of discussion above). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mozambique from 1498 until 1975 was Portuguese Mozambique (or Portuguese East Africa, or a host of other names). While it's the same Mozambique for most reasons, if kept in a separate category, those categories can identify the various periods (see how Category:1498 establishments in Portuguese Mozambique fits in at Category:Establishments in Mozambique by year) which is easier to keep track of. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat easier to identify and distinguish Category:Establishments in Portuguese Mozambique by year (which is lacking) from Category:Establishments in Mozambique by year if the names are different (along with within the Portuguese Empire structure). Category:History of Mozambique already contains the Portuguese Mozambique category which has conflicts, years and other things that generally reflect a separation. It seems inconsistent to have a separation for some parts but not for years, establishments and disestablishments when it's possible to feasibly make it coherent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it should be consistent though I think making it consistent the other way around would be better, namely treating "Portuguese Mozambique" as a period in the history of Mozambique rather than as the name of the country within that same period. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should reflect more particularly the polity involved in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to that as a general principle, but in this case I'm just wondering, since Mozambique has apparently been the name of the territory for a longer period of time, and since there aren't any disambiguation issues, if adding the "Portuguese" adjective is really needed here.. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire main article is at Portuguese Mozambique; the history, the battles, everything stems from that article. Using just Mozambique and somehow linking to the Portuguese article will break every template for hundreds of pages for very little difference. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are a number of keep votes in the 20th century nomination just above, I presume that they apply similarly to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 10:15, 13 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.

Category:Renewers of the church[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 05:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:OCAWARD, it is an honorary title. Listification has already taken place in Renewers of the Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All sounds very WP:peacockish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another unneeded award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The people categorised were significant reformers or founders of renewal movements, but who qualifies is in some degree a POV-issue, which is much better addressed in an article than a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. Neutralitytalk 22:45, 6 June 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:Bahraini uprising (2011–present)[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) 04:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per current title of the article, Bahraini uprising of 2011 George Ho (talk) 07:50, 5 June 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.

A few more award categories[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 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. Most of these categories mainly contain heads of state, high ranked military and politicians to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. The first of the nominated categories (White Rose of Finland) has more variety in professions but nevertheless the award is entirely non-defining.
Note on the side: I found this article Milunka Savić in the last of the categories above, which on its own doesn't justify the existence of the entire category, but perhaps some other, more defining, category may be created for people like her. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These awards are not defining for the individuals involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the Order of the White Rose of Finland, I overlooked the fact that this category has a number of child categories. These child categories have been nominated on the CfD page of the next day, right here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 13:15, 18 June 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:Christian saints by denomination[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: change inclusion criteria. I will leave that to @Marcocapelle: to ensure that it's implemented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Change per WP:OVERLAPCAT. In the header I've boldly added "Saints should not be categorized in any of the denominations subcategories if they are recognized as a saint by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches." and hoping to find consensus about that. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have by far the largest amount of saints and I suggest that saints who are recognized by both these denominations to be 'general Christian' saints rather than saints of any particular denomination. This nomination is in line with consensus in this earlier discussion but the nomination contradicts [[1]]this revert. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Project Saints has been informed about this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Support Pre-schism, neither tradition can claim "ownership" of the saint. Leave the saint as common property. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should categorize articles by traits intrinsic to the subject. This would better work as a list of people recognized as saints by specific denominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Marcocapelle has the right idea, but I do not think the criterion is quite right yet. The Protestant martyr of Mary I's reign were killed by the Catholics and will not be celebrated by them. Conversely the Catholic martyrs in England will not be celebrated by Anglicans: they need to be in Anglican and Catholic categories respectively. In the other hand, Thomas a Becket and St Augustine of Canterbury will be celebrated by both and should be in a more general one (only). However, actually, the situation is a little more complicated, as there have been a series of splits: Coptic and Assyrian in the late antique period; Catholic/Orthodox at the Great Schism; and Catholic/Protestant at the Reformation. Furthermore, Anglicans may not (through lack of knowledge) celebrate Lutheran saints. I think the key to this is categorise by period, so that pre-reformation Catholic saints are in a different category from later ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-reformation Roman Catholic or Anglican saints won't be celebrated by the Orthodox Churches so they would need to be in the 'by denomination' tree anyway. The same applies for Lutheran saints. So I think that these issues are properly addressed by the new inclusion criterion. The only problem with the proposal - if any - are the earlier splits of the Coptic and Assyrian Church, because with this new rule unique-Coptic saints and unique-Assyrian saints would go into their own denomination category, while late antique and early medieval 'general Christian' (Catholic+Orthodox) saints wouldn't. Just because of the size of the Coptic and Assyrian Church relative to the Catholic/Orthodox Church it doesn't seem unreasonable to grant them an own saints category a few centuries earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 6 June 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:Recipients of the Edasseri Award[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 12:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received one of these awards is often/always a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of its recipients; many of the articles in these categories (e.g. Joy Mathew, Anand (writer)) make no mention of the award and in other articles (e.g. Paul Zacharia) it's just one of a list of awards received. Lists are a much better way to record this information (e.g. they can be referenced) and those I've checked already have lists (e.g. Edasseri Award#Recipients and Vallathol Award#Awardees). See also WP:OC#AWARD. For info: the same editor then went on to create a category for "flora and fauna on Indian postage stamps" (CFD) for articles like Sparrow (which is, quite frankly, absurd categorization) - this suggests that the existence of categories for awards recipients may have confused the editor about the basic principles of wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. DexDor (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These awards do not rise to the high level of scrutiny needed to justify awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jojo@nthony, I can only hope that we will delete most award categories. There are far too many as is. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 17 June 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:Filipino music groups[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 to Category:Philippine pop music groups which is the parent category and undoubtedly the intended target of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bluemask (talk) 05:34, 5 June 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:Molluscs of Portugal[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. MER-C 12:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Blue mussel or Mediterranean mussel is found in a particular European country is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. If it is found only in one region then an endemic category can be used. For info: example of a previous similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_17#Category:Arthropods_of_Italy. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A non-endemic category should not be merged into an endemic category. DexDor (talk) 16:13, 5 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_5&oldid=1074815118"