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:upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Towns this size (1.6K) don't get their mayors over WP:NPOL just for being mayors, so the only way a mayor of Fayette would have a Wikipedia article is if they had passed a notability criterion for some other reason besides having been a mayor of Fayette (the fact that the one entry here is a nationally notable civil rights organizer demonstrates this fact rather nicely.) So there's no realistic prospect of this becoming anything more than an unexpandable WP:SMALLCAT. In the unlikely event that we ever do have five articles about mayors of Fayette, then this can be recreated — but until then, it's not warranted or useful. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2016 (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, and keep the sub-categories in it; but there is no objection to removing articles that are inappropriately categorised here. – FayenaticLondon 00:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose This bids fair to turn into a container category for scholar, source edition, and journal sub cats (the former extant, the latter to be pulled from the category membership) but I don't see the proposed upmerge as being helpful. Nothing of the membership is a church father, after all. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) Containerizing would also be an acceptable outcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then in what respect are these articles more coherent beyond being about Ancient Christianity? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePatristics is the study of Church Fathers by later scholars. Not something limited to the Fathers themselves or their literary output. Dimadick (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So which of the articles is about the study of Church Fathers by later scholars? They all seem to be history articles about the period of the Church Fathers. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category seems to have changed considerably since I last looked it. The three sub-cats alone justify the category's existence. I don't think WP:SMALLCAT applies to categories with a small number of large sub-cats. I've never seen that argument advanced before, and the implications would be wide-ranging and damaging. Nothing in the WP:SMALLCAT text seems to justify this interpretation. Most of the actual articles there now could be removed. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; the three subcats look good and this cat can be justified as a container. I would agree with the original nomination that most of the immediate membership doesn't belong. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per reasoning of Dimadick. SJK (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2016 (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:Multiregional international organizations[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: Very unclear what this category is supposed to encompass. The vast majority of international organisations claim to be multiregional (and if they don't their claim to be truly international is suspect) Category:International organizations by region can be used for organisations which relate to more than one region. Maybe we need categories for the Arab world, French or Spanish speaking areas? Rathfelder (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of these are global, some are just regional. Maybe "multiregional" is supposed to be in between but the current category isn't doing that. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except the Eurasian items to Category:International organizations. The Eurasian items relate to the working together of some successor states of the former USSR, which is within a single region that straddles two continents. The rest is too diverse to warrant a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2016 (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: No distinction that I can discern between the two categories. Rathfelder (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The distinction is subtle but can be differentiated. Global organizations surpass and subsume international, inter-regional, or transnational organizations. Supranational is a close synonym for global (see Supranational law). For example, the UN is supranational; the EU is international or, more specifically, intergovernmental. In other words, international is closer to the local end of the continuum than global. (See each of the terms in Wiktionary.) Meclee (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for many international organizations it'll be difficult to establish whether they are truly global or just almost global. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2016 (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:WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a web series which doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one; all that's filed here is the eponym itself and an episode list — and even the episode list only has one episode to list, meaning that it has zero value as a standalone article and should be merged back into the main article. Every television or web series does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; it gets one only if and when there's a sizable number of related spinoff articles to file in it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2016 (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:Chinese television series by network[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: Sibling categories in Category:Television series by network are allowed to be named "network" or "channel", depending on which term is more normative in their own dialectical context — however, there is no other example of any country where a "network" category and a "channel" category both exist as sibling categories for the same country. These should be merged under one name or the other, though I'm not sure which one should be retained as the target. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge The former sounds clearer to my American ears but I'll defer to other editors who feel more strongly about regional English. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2016 (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.
