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) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category not needed to hold a single template. Tassedethe (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete as unnecessary. The category seems top have a template but no main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 20 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.
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.
Comment -- An alternative might be to restructure this so that the presetn category (which has two "magazine" parents) became a paretn for newspaper and magazine cats. However, I rather doubt that there are enough of them to merit doing that. Perhaps we should merge with the magazines, purging out any that are genuine newspapers into Irish newspapers. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 20 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Suggest merging to the Germany categories. In line with WP:SMALLCAT, there's no justification to have a separate history structure for individual cities within Germany at the moment. There's only seven pages here in total. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 17 other "Category: Centuries in X" where X is a location in past or present Germany that are in Category:Centuries in Germany. Are you suggesting the other 17 categories and their subcategories should also be deleted? LizRead!Talk! 22:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than 200 in Category:Centuries by city but right now I'm going with Frankfurt and trying to figure out where the consensus lies. It seems like consensus has lent itself towards countries but not many of the smaller subdivision (absent US states) excluding these cities from what I can tell which is a bit odd. For example, Category:Centuries in Australia doesn't have the Australian states but various cities instead. It's possible (although I'm not sure I agree with it) that people support merging Frankfurt's history into Category:Centuries in Hesse (Frankfurt being the only centuries being upmerged) which is similarly small but is done with buildings and structures, education, geography and others sporadically. Frankfurt only having eight pages in total is the question to me at the moment. The question is whether we should upmerge these based on this situation or populate it from the Germany/Hesse category downward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also with some extra population there are now 31 articles Tim! (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NARROWCAT. The larger amount of articles in these categories concerns contemporary history, that doesn't make it very suitable to keep as history categories. It might be different for a city like Cologne though. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The 20th century category has enough content to keep. If not kept, it should be merged to the equivalent Hesse categories, but that would not be appropriate for earlier periods (if we had categories for them) as Frankfurt was not then part of Hesse. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial part of the 20th-century content has a mere trivial relationship with the city of Frankfurt (namely all sports championships). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I am not convinced that we need to seperate these out so finely, and in some cases whether they belong in a specific category for Frankfurt is debatable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 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:15th-century architecture in the United Kingdom[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename since this is what this is really about. There are more categories so this is the first with the results here dictating how the others should be treated. A delete may also be on the table for this. If this structure is fully implemented we would add hundreds, maybe even thousands of categories as all existing building and structure articles will also need to be added to a by century by country category. Then someone will argue we also need by decade and by year. So that could result in 10s of thousands of new categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have architecture by country and century or buildings by country and century and I don't think it's necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Liz's comments, keep. I also see Category:American architectural styles. If the articles are in the wrong category, that's not for CFD but it seems like the category itself is fine. I have no idea if every building completed in the 15th-century in the UK would constitute 15th-century architecture. For example, does Sagrada Família, designed in the 1880s but not to be completed until the 2020s, reflect 19th-century architecture of 21st century? I'm sure that's something an independent WP:RS architecture historian should be the answer for so I do understand the need for distinct articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also the nominator should not be emptying these categories and trying to preempt discussion such as here [1]Tim! (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We have been recategorising buildings by century of completion. Since the appropriate category does not seem to exist, we should rename it accordingly. The buildings and structures trees have been found to duplicate the architecture trees and we have opted for the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split into at least England, Scotland and Ireland categories. The United Kingdom is not created until the start of the 19th-century, so the term is anachronistic here, even more so because in the 15th-century Scotland was entirely seperate from England.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom without prejudice to reinstating the architecture category if there is (going to be) content about architecture itself (so apart from the buildings). Also support splitting UK per JPL. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 22 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.
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 12:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems from this edit that it is a category created by one editor to apply to another's talk page. I'd feel differently if it was a self-identification but it is a joke. The category doesn't have to continue to exist after the joke has been made. LizRead!Talk! 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No recourse to lawyers here but I'm sure that I too would fit into the category! FortunaImperatrix Mundi 19:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not JOKE-applicable, since it is not empty, as it is being used to categorize users. WP:NOTSOCIAL Wikipedia is not a social site, we should not be categorizing users by social status when they are not helpful in collaboration on encyclopedic content. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:08, 10 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:Orthodox bishops of the Cossack Hetmanate[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.
Nominator's rationale: delete, the category is virtually empty, because the one article that is in there is not about a bishop of the Cossack Hetmanate. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Do you agree or disagree with the rationale of this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- before becoming Metrpolitan of Kiev, he was "bishop of Mstsislau, Orsha, and Mahiliou", that ought to have a category, even if it is only a general one for bishops by country. In a period when bishops were not habitually expatriates, the category should by by country, not nationality. Cossack Hetmanate was a polity existing 1647-1764, so that there ought to be a national category but I think it should be Category:Orthodox bishops in the Cossack Hetmanate (based on the location of see, not nationality. There should be other people to populate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to use the in, so it is clear we are not saying these bishops had a jurisdiction equivalent to the Hetmanate. No reason to assume there will not be other articles on bishops who would fit this description.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the principle of having bishops "of" rather than by nationality, but this bishop was clearly notable only as a bishop of Kiev, in which category he already has been classified. The creation of three new bishops categories is beyond the scope of CfD anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer "in", but "of" would be better than nothing, but it implies that their see was the Hetmanate, which is probably incorrect (contrast Bishop of London etc). The test should be the nation of the see, not the nationality of the bishop: that will comnmonly be the same, though not in the case of missionary bishops. Is "Orthodox" necessary, if there were no other denominations? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For sure Kiev - which was the main bishopric of this one bishop - did not belong to the Cossack Hetmanate polity, Kiev was officially Russian at the time of this bishop, while the Cossack rebellion merely started and had not outgrown into a polity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No I oppose deletion. This is a legitimate category, nation+bishop in nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 9 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:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox 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 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 12:10, 22 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.
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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. Many of these categories mainly contain heads of state, high ranked military and politicians to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. There are also some awards granted to people with slightly more 'ordinary' professions (like Estonian Red Cross, Class III-V) but nevertheless the award remains wholly non-defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no objection to listification - per nom. Neutralitytalk 22:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the first category on this list has one entry, an article that is in 85 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 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.
but I'm sure that I too would fit into the category! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)