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. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about "...educated at the Rangi..."? Leaving out the article makes it sound rather odd. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Nyttend, the definite article does definitely not belong to the category name. But I'd also like to point out that "Rangi Ruru" is the common name for the school (nobody ever uses the full name), and that it hasn't always been a girls' school either. For example, judge Kenneth Gresson graduated from the school. Schwede66 04:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be a reverse change then, with the article name changing? Grutness...wha? 08:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article. I am neutral on whether the "the" is needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match article. The "the" is arguable since it's a cross-language name (Maori language used in an English language context). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 11:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, almost none of these bishops is characterized as Celtic, they are mostly characterized as Welsh (in most child categories) or as Irish (in most articles) and all content is already categorized correctly in the bishops tree. See also discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep. Let's retain this unchanged until the other Celtic Christianity CFDs are done. Once they've concluded, keep this if they're kept, and delete this if they're deleted. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed delete This should certainly go - once we start using "Celtic" as an ethnic term the troubles will never end. But keep until the others are sorted. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Await outcome -- I have argued in detail under Scotland (below) for the retention of "Celtic Christianity" as a concept. The problem with this category is that the articles straddle periods: there appears to be a transition in c. 1115 when Henry I of England subjected to Welsh bishops to Canterbury. The problem is less significant for Cornwall, where the first bishop with a Saxon name combined the see with Crediton, and a successor moved the see to Exeter. Another issue is that in the Celtic church abbots were at least as significant as bishops; and I gather that the lists of bishops are subject to some uncertainty. This may reflect the lack of territorial limitations on their ministry in the early Medieval period. This is not simplified by the main sources being a handful of chronicles. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the goal here was at some point to delineated the Celtic Christians when they were a distinct group not fully in line with Rome. However the sub-cats do not fit that goal, and early medieval Celtic Christianity is too unorganized a group to be categorized by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 5 December 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: How does this differ from "kidnapped children"? Delete and upmerge to its parent category. BDD (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently a case in the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area in which parents were found to have kept their son in captivity in the basement for a long period of time each day. For a starker example, consider Genie (feral child), already in this category, whose father kept her in captivity around the clock until her teens. Neither of these was an incident of kidnapping; both were incidents of child abuse by those with whom the child was supposed to be associating anyway. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not always accurate. See this story, which got a lot of headlines throughout the USA a few days ago. A man took his son from the boy's mother's home in Alabama to live in Ohio in an incident lots of people are calling kidnapping. The two lived normally and openly, without any allegations of imprisonment being raised, until the boy (now an adult) accidentally discovered what had happened. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to this. If we distinguish between "kidnapped" and "kept in captivity", that's the way to do it. --BDD (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems largely redundant except for a few where the child's custodian is the one who keeps them in captivity. And the inclusion criteria: "This category includes people who were held in captivity as children in a criminal act. It does not include people lawfully detained by a government authority, e.g., juvenile prisoners." seems to include anyone who was a slave during their first 16? 18? 21? years. And what may be lawful detainment in one jurisdiction may be seen as unlawful elsewhere, making a further nuance that cannot easily be solved. I've added Anne Frank who clearly belongs as being held in captivity as a minor in an unlawful detainment (as the whole Holocaust was declared unlawful as a war crime). I'm sure others could easily be included... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on or objection to deletion, but reverse per Marcocapelle if this is kept. —烏Γ(kaw) │ 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem is that if we start retroactively including people whose captivities, though acceptable to the government that ruled over them were retroactively considered illegal we have made a mess. By using modern definitions some might want to put everyone who was in an apprenticeship in 18th-century England in this category. This category creates more problems than it provides aid in navigation. A list of notable cases might be useful, but not a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just from reading the description, I as the reader do not get a good sense of what this category is about. If it's about parents' treatment of their children, then "kept in captivity" would seem to have many degrees and meanings. "Kept" implies for how long? A few minutes, or are we talking days, months, years? Is a non-custodial parent who commits a crime by keeping a child in their house when the child is supposed to go back to the other parent thus "keeping the child in captivity"? Or is this solely for parents who lock their kids in a room or cage or closet? If, on the other hand, it's not about parents' treatment of their children, but rather about non-custodial, non-parental abductions, then is the child considered to be "in captivity" due to the psychological bonds or inability for the child to get back to his true parent or custodian, even if the child is free to wander around the neighborhood all day long rather than being locked in a room? Others have also noted the Anne Frank type situation where a child is kept captive under some then-acceptable legal regime that later is considered criminal. I have absolutely no idea what purpose this category is serving as its scope seems so unclear. TheBlinkster (talk) 05:12, 28 December 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: The concept of Celtic Christianity is a controversial one, much abused in the past. Many scholars deny such a thing existed. We should not be putting everything to do with Early Medieval Christianity in Ireland into this category tree, but only the far fewer number of articles that actually relate to distinctly Celtic practices. For example Book of Kells is a long featured article which does not mention "Celtic Christianity" once. It is not only not defining, but downright inaccurate for most of the items now in the category. There is some very sloppy work going on here, by over-active regulars. Fortunately the number of changes made is small enough for them to be reverted without too much difficulty. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what is proposed - take the first item in the new category, where you made these changes. In theory some changes might be worth keeping, but eg you have now categorized Bernard Smith (abbot), died 1892, as a "Medieval Gael", as well as under Celtic Christianity, which I'm sure would have outraged him. So in general better to presume they should be reverted. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll check further, you'll find that most of it came from Category:Celtic Christianity. I'm just trying to think along with you how to tackle this issue also wrt the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, back to the old categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Celtic Christianity is far too large, and mostly misleading. For example Category:Celtic Christian bishops should be re-named/deleted. But one step at a time. I can't work out what the category would look like after today's changes have been reverted. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I oppose merging back after I've provided you with two better alternatives to solve the problem. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You suggestions are as poor as the category itself. Category:Christianity in medieval Ireland is a reasonable idea, though not exactly necessary, but reverting your recent edits will also clear up things like putting Victorians into medieval categories (see above). Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How to parent Category:Irish abbots is a smaller discussion apart from the nomination. The question is, since Category:Irish abbots consists mainly of early medieval Irish abbots - apart from one Victorian titular abbot -, should we or shouldn't we parent the category to medieval categories. I'm happy to go along with either direction of consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restrict to the Early Christian period in Ireland, ending approximately with arrival of the Normans (c.1169). Because some articles and categories straddle periods, we are inevitably going to get some anachronistic parenting, but that cannot easily be avoided. The distinction between Ireland and Scotland (where I have taken a slightly different position below) is that Ireland is an island. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in practice it won't matter a lot whether we draw the line in 1169 or in 1453 because there's very little content on Christianity in Ireland for the later medieval centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on Scotland below. It should be "pre-Reformation". 1453 made no difference to anything in Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "Celtic Christianity" categories altogether. These caegories properly used would end prior to 1000, I believe much prior to it. At heart they are giving too much weight to what mainly amounted to differences in the timing of Easter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 5 December 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: The concept of Celtic Christianity is a controversial one, much abused in the past. We should not be putting everything to do with Early Medieval Christianity in Scotland into this category tree, but only the far fewer number of articles that actually relate to distinctly Celtic practices. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the Irish category, the dubious term "Celtic Christianity" is only applied to the Early Medieval period, and in Western Christian categories the Reformation is the obvious break point. 1473 in Scotland was certainly in the medieval period. The name should probably reflect this. Some of the sub-categories extend to modern times. That said, Category:Christianity in medieval/pre-Reformation Scotland is a reasonable category, though Marcocapelle should populate it properly. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Celtic Christianity -- Christianity survived the invasion of pagan Angles and Saxons in the west of Britain. From there, it spread to Ireland and so (via Iona) to Scotland and Northumbria Celtic. This religion differed in some details from Roman practice: in an emphasis on monasteries with abbots, rather than bishops, and in the computation of Easter. In England, Northumbria conformed Roman practice on Easter at the Synod of Whitby, but the monastery system persisted in places, in the form in minsters, but with bishops definitely in charge above the abbots. It is thus not possible to argue that there is no such thing as Celtic Christianity, but categories need to be restricted to the period before areas conformed to Rome. For Northumbria, the period would be brief: probably too brief to merit a category. For Scotland and Ireland, Christianity came earlier and Celtic practices persisted longer. We can probably draw a line at the point where monasteries were reformed to adopt the Benedictine rule (or later the Cistercians arrived) or when we start getting bishops in charge of specific dioceses. I am afraid that I do not know enough to be able to specify dates. On the specific cases, what do we mean by "Scotland": Edinburgh was part of Northumberland. Southern Scotland also had the kingdom of Strathclyde. The Scotti were the Irish people ruling Dalraida. Possibly one might regard the Pictish kingdom as an incipient Scotland, but in dealing with any period before 9th or 10th century, "Scotland" is an anachronism. Indeed, throughout the Celtic world there were a mass of little kingdoms: Wales is also something of an anachronism, unless one regards it as a synonym for areas not under Anglo-Saxon rule. Note: my initial view was that we should keep this, but restrict its application; as I wrote this, my view changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recategorize where needed. None of these institutions or people conceived of themselves as religiously independent from Christianity as a whole in a way that would justify this category structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 5 December 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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 16:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has just been set up, by a user who has obviously not bothered to look at Insular art, the whole point of which is that it covers Anglo-Saxon, Irish and Scottish art at a time when they used the same style. He has added a few exclusively Irish items, but not most of the relevant ones, nor has he bothered to add the main article! We just don't need this category, which it would be rather complicated to fill correctly, as at the edges whether an object is "Insular" or not can be a matter of debate. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, I had added the main article, of course, but you've reverted it. Neither am I to blame for not filling up the category completely within a day. The real issue here is that Category:Celtic art has two very different types of content, on the one hand prehistoric/ancient art of mainland Europe (which is the larger amount of content), on the other hand early medieval art when the Celts were only on the British Isles (and Brittany). Different times and different places. Then it makes perfect sense, also per main article Insular art, to create a subcategory for the latter type of content. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. These are not "two very different types of content" but a continuous style stretching continuously from Iron Age Europe to Early Medieval Ireland, as the article explains. All major sources covering "Celtic Art" cover both, eg: Laing, Lloyd and Jenifer. Art of the Celts, Thames and Hudson, London 1992 ISBN0-500-20256-7; Megaw, Ruth and Vincent (2001). Celtic Art. ISBN0-500-28265-X; Megaw, Ruth and Vincent, "Celtic Art", Oxford Art Online, accessed October 7, 2010. You obviously just haven't looked at either of the main articles at all. Nor is all early medieval Celtic art "Insular". Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say that there is no continuity at all. The continuity is maintained by having it as a subcategory within the Category:Celtic art tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You made these changes without consulting anyone, and they are a bad idea. If we had a proper Category:Insular art it would have to include numbers of Anglo-Saxon works, which don't belong under Category:Celtic art. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely free to add articles that belong here, I've never suggested that I own the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad category, with the wrong parents. It needs to go. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close This category is only hours old and the nominator removed the main article here. And now the category should be removed because the creator hasn't had time to populate it and because the creator hasn't "bothered to add the main article!" (exclamation mark in original)? I added Insular art back before I read the above comments. I don't know anything about the underlying art topic but this nomination is out of order. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and populate as Category:Hiberno-Saxon art, which is given as an alternative name in the main article; also rename the main article. "Insular art" is ambiguous as it might refer to the art of any island: the statutes of Easter Island might count, but they clearly do not belong here. As I read it, this is about a style of art associated with the Celtic Church in Ireland, which spread with Celtic Christianity to Scotland and Northumbria. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "Insular art" is a rather ambiguous name. Would you be willing to get the article renamed so that the category name can follow? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another terrible idea. "Hiberno-Saxon" has been old-fashioned for some decades. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this nomination (I say this meaning not that I disagree with it but that I really don't actually understand what is being proposed); however, 'Hiberno-Saxon' is a no no for lots of reasons, unscholarly, un-PC, confusing, and so forth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep "Insular art" is the main article's name for a good reason: it's the prevailing term. The possibility of confusing it with Polynesian art or whatever is cause for a decent head-note, not for deletion or renaming. If we can't get over our fear of confusion, then Hiberno-Saxon" it will have to be. But there is no reason whatsoever to disperse the category. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As is for now. The main article shows that this is an accepted concept that can group art. Whether the current name or "Hiberno-Saxon" art is a better term, I have no idea. This should be brought up with a move request on the article and a consultation of reliable souces, with a weighting towards the uses of sources in the last decade should be done. If this is the common name it does not matter if it is confusing, however if Hiberno-Saxon art is even close to as often used than that should be used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 5 December 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.
For the record, I did a quick review of Category:Mayors of places in West Virginia just to see if there were any other mayors of these places who had just failed to be categorized as such, and I did indeed find one additional mayor of Wheeling — so that one's now a two-item category instead of one. However, I still don't view two entries as enough to escape WP:SMALLCAT — for four I'd go keep, and for three I'd be on the fence depending how much prospect really existed of a fourth one being created sooner rather than later, but two mayors just isn't enough. Upmerge both per nom, without prejudice against recreation in the future if enough mayors actually have articles to file in them. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now 'These are all too small to aid navigation. No objection to recreating later if we get up to 5 articles or so. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - these categories only need to exist if they're needed either due to a significant popu;lation (at least half a dozen), or to help break up oversized parent categories. In these cases, neither applies. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:53, 23 November 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, although I will be minded to propose the C16 category later for merging if it remains with only one member. – FayenaticLondon 22:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While we certainly categorize people by their year of death where known, and by the century of death where a specific year is not known, we do not have any accepted scheme of intersecting year or century of death with some other unrelated characteristic, such as occupation or racial identity or gender or sexual orientation. Accordingly, this is an WP:OCAT violation as an intersection of unrelated characteristics — and even if these were kept for some unfathomable reason, this wouldn't be their proper naming format and thus they would still need to be renamed. Delete, or repurpose per Marcocapelle's suggestion below. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that either — that might even constitute a scheme that we rightly should have (but don't yet). Nomination revised accordingly, to include that as an option. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marcocapelle's suggestion above, or... well per anything that's more grammatical than the current names! Note - IIRC we do have some categories organised by year/decade/century of birth, but I think the scheme suggested by Marcocapelle is generally more appropriate. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Rename I'm open to either proposal above. In the end though, we should get rid of the intersection of year/death/sexual orientation though. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Marcocapelle. LGBT is the established category tree, from which we should not deviate without reason. I would suggest that in categorising anybody by century, they should only be in the century when they were most active, not an earlier one when they were merely a child. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rescope as proposed by Marcocapelle - we dont need separate categories for male homosexuals, s opposed to all LGBT; and the split should be based on when they were active, not when they died - a person who was active during the 16th century should be categorized by the 16th century even if they survived January 1st, 1601. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a different scoped category can be created on its own. Not only would the proposal expand the scope, but not all people should be categorized by the century of their death, although most end up belonging in that century. Total rescoping of the category makes no sense. I also question the rescoping because it imposes late-20th and 21st-century ways of thining of identity and identity grouping on people of the past who had a very different set of ways of viewing the world. Based on how the world was viewed in the 19th-century, this category repurposed away from death to a general people category might be more legitimate. The notion that male attraction to males and female attraction to females should be thought of as two manifestations of the same thing is a very recent view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 5 December 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.
Wouldn't it make sense to keep the category just because it is such a rare combination in the Malaysian context? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle I respect your logic but if you look at the articles in this category only one I think has significant content on being a Malaysian Chinese and Muslim. Plus it is even rarer for ethnic Malay Malaysians to follow a religion other than Islam so should there be a Category:Non-Muslim Malay Malaysians or Category:Malay Malaysian Christians? Categories such as these are in the grey zone of what is and isn't allowed and I personally thin these Category is a tad on the excessive side. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete triple intersection of nationality, ethnicity & religion. WP:OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest listify and merge to parents. – FayenaticLondon 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both Category:Malaysian Chinese people and Category:Malaysian Muslims at least if there is evidence for both. In Malaysia religion is heavily restricted by law and the right to change religion is undermined, at times leading to religion being imputed essentially based on ethnicity with no respect for the individual decision with regard to religion. We need to make sure to only categorize on ethnicity and religion where such is explicitly supported by the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 5 December 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.
delete This is a container for three groups of people to Iona, not from there. The abbots are almost entirely from Ireland; the burials who aren't among said abbots are Scottish nobility buried in an especially sacred place (the early medieval Celtic version of being buried in Arlington Cemetery or Westminster Abbey); and the Iona Community people all came from elsewhere to join this monastic revival. Maybe there is some other way to package these three categories together on the basis of their associations with the island, but "from Iona" is definitely and hopelessly inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I do not see how the Iona Community membership is in any way a shared name. The Iona Community is like a monastery, a specific organization, not a poetic name for residents of the island. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with deleting too, the child categories are proper merge targets which however don't need to be grouped together. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not purge or isolate sub-cat Category:Iona Community members: if the nominated cat is not kept, move the sub-cats up into appropriate parents of the nominated category. – FayenaticLondon 16:33, 15 November 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:Concentration camps basically are another name for internment camps of specific historical periods, notably the Nazi period. There are already specific categories for World War II and Nazi concentrations camps. With a generic intermediate category such as this, Concentration camps however pretends to be a generic term distinct from Internment camps, which is both wrong and unhelpful. More specific categories can still be created to cater for other camps that historically have been called Concentration camps. --PanchoS (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. For consistency, the concentration camps categories per country should also be nominated (maybe in a next nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:47, 7 November 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: Not necessarily a WP:SMALLCAT concern but the category only contains a single redirect for EPs by !!!. Those same categories (absent Category:EPs by artist, a container category) can be done at the redirect page. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wrong namespace. This intent here seems to be to have a !!! (EP) redirect article to the !!! article, but this is a category.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the history; in it's current form the category isn't grouping anything or aiding navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:25, 16 November 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With all the certifications gone, this category only contains four lists of albums articles. The certification here is just another way or saying album sales so it's essentially the same details. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus was to delete all the categories of gold/platinum/multiplatinum albums, the two categories relating to diamond certified albums should be deleted by the same criteria – these are just another sales/shipping level, same as gold and platinum. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge as Nominated There was never any opposition to list articles that I recall during all the album sale nominations. This change just is truth in advertising to better reflect the remaining contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:20, 7 November 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.
