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 delete as empty, without prejudice to re-creating as Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Iran if suitable content is found. (Disclosure: I participated below, but this does not now appear contentious.) – FayenaticLondon 11:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:NONDEF, archaeological sites is not a defining characteristic of the content of the category (as the location of the ancient city is unknown, there can't be an archaeological site). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ancient Greek sites are not necessarily archaeological sites. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are part of the tree of Archaeological sites. Omitting 'archaeological' in the child categories' names doesn't make the scope any different. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a legitiamte comment, but being in Iran (not Iraw or Syria might justify having what I suggested. AS indicated, I suspect there is room foir populating that better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go for that. If you mean modern Iran, there is no other Hellenistic colonies in modern country category and it would be too anachronistic to start that. If you mean ancient Iran, the city didn't belong to Iran but to the Seleucid Empire instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Seleucid colonies, although deletion would suffice as the only member page Apamea (Media) is already in that. It cannot be an archaeological site as its location is unknown. – FayenaticLondon 17:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iran was colonized by Ancient Greek in the Classical antiquity and are not necessarily archeeological sites. - 200.229.239.2 (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The one article in the category is already in better categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: it seems like nobody contests the rationale of the nomination, namely the fact that the one article in this category Apamea (Media) isn't about an archaeological site (NONDEF). I would therefore suggest there is consensus on deleting the category with no consensus if the one article needs to be reparented. I've therefore boldly removed the category from the article, leaving the category empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 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.
Support as this places material within the project scope, which is not the sole owner of admin material. Project categories should only contain project-specific material, not material on the topic that the project covers. SFB 19:33, 24 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:delete. MER-C 06:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has one article (that's in plenty of other categories) and has no parents - hence it performs no navigational purpose. DexDor (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as small cat with no discernible opportunity for expansion. Pichpich (talk) 20:29, 11 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:delete. MER-C 06:44, 19 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete There is no objective definition of what constitutes a supercar so it's not a sound basis of categorization. If kept, the category should at least be renamed Category:Supercars to match the article supercar. Pichpich (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The guidelines at WP:AUCL state that "supercar" is not a classification to be used on Wikipedia because the term is vague. To me it appears that this category does not comply with that guideline. Perhaps either WP:AUCL should be deleted and the Category:Super cars should be kept, or WP:AUCL should be kept and the category removed. Bahooka (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the guideline. Agree with Bahooka that whatever the decision here, one of them (the category or the guideline) should go. Keep in mind, if we delete WP:AUCL, not only will we have to make calls on what is a supercar, but also what is a "hypercar" and any other such terms that come up. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 03:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never heard of a hypercar so that can stay, but we know what a suppercar is so i think the supercar term should be removed from the guideline saying not to use it. Right now I am thinking of removing and replacing hypercar with super car on the infoboxes that categorizes a car as a hyper car. Doorknob747 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)
Interestingly, there is no interwiki link to it.wiki on the article supercar. In any case, using the Italian definition would be completely arbitrary and would most likely not match the examples of supercars in the article. Pichpich (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too many different definitions (and too vague) in Supercar to make it useful for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep If we can have Supercar, then we recognise that the term exists and has some credible definition. In which case the category Supercars makes sense. If for some unclear reason we can't support the category, then that would bring the term and its article into question. There has long been a great aversion to the description of cars in the Miura and Veyron league as "supercars" in the infoboxes. WP should sort this once and for all and either use the term (in all three places) or not at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with this type of reasoning. Per the content of an article we may well decide that the term is unsuitable or less suitable for categorization. For example, the Paganism article points out that Paganism is an outdated term, hence we have a very modest Category:Paganism while most of the former content is in Category:Ethnic religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:06, 20 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.
Creator's comment: My bad, perhaps I overlooked the existing category which covered both universities and collages. I would still request keeping this category for a simple reason that number of universities in India (central 45 and state 325 + other universities) is large and the number of collages will be several times over this. Having two separate categories will provide better categorization (perhaps). Also, a person searching only for colleges will be able to use the category. All I can say is, please consider this category and also creating a separate category for Universities in India. Many thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are Colleges categories in the Bahama's, in Bangla Desh, in Belgium etc. I see no compelling reason why India shouldn't have its own Colleges category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per my comment and request above. Number of colleges in India is very large and combining the categories would make it too lengthy and cumbersome. I appreciate the nominator's rationale but still would request to consider this and creating another category for Universities in India. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AKS.9955: There's a huge amount of universities and colleges in India so I would strongly recommend:
to subcategorize the colleges category by type of college and keep Category:Colleges in India only as a container category;
to parent all existing colleges categories by state (there are many of them already) to these college types. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Marcocapelle, thanks for your time. I think what you are suggesting makes better sense than my original idea. Its best that this category is kept as container category along with Universities in India and then we drill down based on states & cities. Last I checked, there are 45 UGC central universities, more than 325 state universities and I don't even have a count of colleges. I just finished the review of central universities and added categories and templates; now I am on the state universities. Next I will start with the colleges. In the meanwhile, if you can improve the categorization, please do that and let me know so that I can start using the same. Many thanks once again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Universities and colleges is just a container category which is meant as the trunk of a scheme for post-secondary institutions, not as the end level in and of itself. If a country has enough institutions to justify further subcatting, then it is allowed to be further subdivided into separate "universities" and "colleges" subcategories (since those aren't strictly interchangeable terms, but represent two distinct types of educational institutions.) So those categories aren't duplicating the parent; they're just narrowing and diffusing it. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I fear that Indian education has been the subject of grade-inflation, so that a batchelor's degree is not much better then the school leaving qualification elsewhere. Colleges teaching only to batchelor's level are numerous and are lower than universities. As an equivalent, sixth form colleges and further education colleges in UK do not offer degree courses and are not univeristies: they should not be merged inot a category about teriary education, when they do not teach to that level. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 21 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:delete. MER-C 06:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The melancholic nature of the songs in this category seems non-defining to me. It's not discussed in the articles and one would tend to not find it in sources which discuss the songs. It can also tend to lead to POV interpretations of what the song is about. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not precise enough to be a sound basis of categorization. Pichpich (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the entries say the songs are "melancholic" so hardly defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Neutralitytalk 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; subjective/POV and non-defining. For comparison's sake, we don't and rightly shouldn't have categories for the obvious counterparts to this, Category:Sad songs or Category:Happy songs, either. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 16 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.
