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 per WP:NONDEF. While technically these articles are indeed about persons who lived in the Elbe-Weser Triangle or about places in the Elbe-Weser triangle, most articles aren't referring to the Elbe-Weser Triangle at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show that this area had a discrete political existence: I do not think they will manage that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 4 October 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 I was going to say upmerge but it looks like they all are already categorized well. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first of these might be useful as a container category and the second might be merged into it. However neither should contain articles: they need to be moved elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 4 October 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:Ships at the Japanese Instrument of Surrender[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: This seems WP:NONDEFINING. There were a lot of ships present for the ceremony. (And by the way, the Instrument is a document, so these are really ships at the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.) BDD (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not seeing how being simply present at a diplomatic act is defining for a warship. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 2 October 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 per nom. – FayenaticLondon 22:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few establishments in a relatively small and relatively shortlasting (1 century) duchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery! Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Not enough content to merit a whole tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be more discussion of which countries are going to be kept for consistency. Tim! (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious that we should keep year categories for countries that don't have a WP:SMALLCAT issue, and go to decade or century categories for countries that do. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ducht of Brunswick should be kept as it was an independent country during this time periold. Tim! (talk) 12:14, 11 October 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:procedural close. This was intended to be filed at WP:CFDS, and I've listed it there. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wrong naming placed during creating, simply a typo. Mondiad (talk) 16:39, 1 October 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: Pope Francis is not a music artist. There is guarantee that there would be a second album like this. If some day there is, then we may reconsider, but for now, Category:Works by Pope Francis should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per WP:SMALLCAT and the extensive precedent of keeping album categories per artist, no matter how many he releases. This is a long-standing scheme of about 18,000 members and there is no reason why this is somehow unique. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; he is not an artist, and I personally doubt he has had any significant role in the album's production or release. —烏Γ(kaw), 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small category or no, the category fits the categorization scheme of having a corresponding category for each album's creator or creators. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate Upmerge all the way to Category:Pope Francis using 烏Γ's analysis. The only article, Wake Up! (Pope Francis album), is not by the Pope in any traditional sense. It is his speeches set to music, similar to rap songs that use clips from other works and transform the original work. There's nothing in the article to suggest the Pope had any involvement or that the Vatican sanctioned the album. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:19, 4 October 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. – FayenaticLondon 21:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are multiple problems with this cat. Professor is an academic rank, not a degree. No clue where the (unsourced) claim that it "extremely rarely" has been used as a degree comes from, but even if true, if something is this rare, it should perhaps be mentioned briefly in professor (if it can be sourced), but does not justify naming a whole category "degrees" whereas the rest of the world thinks of this as ranks. (Note: a degree is something like a diploma -PhD, MSc, MD, etc- and once you have it you keep it even if you start doing something completely different. "Professor" is a job title and if you switch careers, you lose the right to use it). Second, there are not all that many ranks that fall into this cat and, per WP:SMALLCAT, I don't see why we need a special cat "Professorial degrees" or "professorial ranks" if we have the completely appropriate "Academic ranks" for that. Randykitty (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly problems with this category but the article Professorial degree seems to show that it exists. However, everything else in this category should not be there. So the discussion should be about whether there are articles on people who have a Professorial degree. If there are, these articles should be in this category. If there are none or only one or two, the category should be deleted. --Bduke(Discussion) 09:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at Professorial degree. I don't know about Poland, but I am rather sure that this does not apply to Germany. Habit in Germany is that a person who used to be a professor still uses that title after they retire, for example, but I don't know of any cases where somebody got the title "professor" without at the same time also getting the equivalent position. It looks like hardly any article links to Professorial degree (most links seem to come from its inclusion in the {{Academic degrees}} template. --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 1 October 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.
Speedy to match the K-Love main article, per WP:C2D - facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:55, 1 October 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 per nom, in principle. Though better merge instead of delete, because the contents of both categories is not entirely identical. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 1 October 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:Presidents of the United States who were Freemasons[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: I realize that this is super important information to certain people, among them various types of conspiracy theorists, but I'm not sure if it's something that we should be categorizing the presidents by: I don't think that being a Freemason is a particularly defining characteristic for these presidents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American Freemasons, which is not otherwise subcatted. This falls under trivial intersection of unrelated characteristics. Oculi (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename: I would oppose an upmerge... I would argue that even the broader category of Category:American Freemasons is an intersection of non-defining, unrelated characteristics (how is being both an American and a Freemason defining).
In any case, when we created this category, the intent was not to have a sub-categorization of Presidents... The intent was to have a sub-categorization of Freemasons. For a member of the Freemasons, becoming President of the US is defining (as it would be for a member of any other group or organization). To make the link clearer, perhaps we should switch the terms around... and do a rename to Category:Freemasons who were President of the United States? (this could be matched by similar sub-cats under the broader banner of cat:Freemasons... "Freemasons who were King of England"... Freemasons who were Scientists"... Freemasons who were XYZ, etc. ). Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable intersection, unless one's a conspiracy theorist. A sourced list would be better like Handedness of Presidents of the United States rather than divvying up the presidents by lefties and righties (other than politically, that is). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep You said it right in the nomination; this is important information to some people. Not just conspiracy theorists—Masons themselves, and anyone doing more serious research on, for example, Freemason imagery in American civic life. It does seem like a fairly narrow intersection, though, and presidents are chock-full of categories anyway. I recently compiled the List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves, but I wouldn't make a category from that either (though that one, one hopes, would never get any larger). --BDD (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This may indeed be of interest to some readers (I won't judge their motives) but is not a worthwhile intersection for a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- As a matter of principle an article should not be in the parent and child categories. Presidents will inevitably be in the parent Category:Presidents of the United States, so that we should be wary of having subcats in which they might also need to appear. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Even though I fully agree with Blueboar′s line of reasoning, I think that a list will be much more handy, as it can contain dates (which is impossible for a category) and also make reference to the case of LBJ.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator). I agree that listifying would be a preferable option to straight deletion, as I proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify. A list can deal with complications (e.g. someone who was a US president and was a freemason, but not at the same time). The American Freemasons category is not so large (and many of the articles in it could probably be removed per text at Category:Freemasons) that it needs subdividing (and if it was to be subdivided by occupation then it would be better to have a politicians subcat). DexDor(talk) 04:53, 9 October 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.
