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 the first; delete the second. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, since "Christian" and "militants" is in this case a trivial intersection, these Palestinians don't fight to spread Christianity. Likewise in the parent Category:Palestinian Christian terrorism "Christian" and "terrorism" is a trivial intersection; the parent category will become empty if the proposed merge goes ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is a good point, I've added Category:Palestinian militants as a parent on the category page, also added it as a second merge target in the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of X are A being an X who's B doesn't make XB combination defining. Most people are right handed, presumably most Palestinian militants as well, so Category:Left-handed Palestinian militants is defining? Same flawed logic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both no indication that Christian Palestinian militants or terrorists militate or terrorize any differently than their non-Christian (be they Muslim or non-religious) counterparts. If so, please show with WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with rationale but I suppose, with this rationale, it wouldn't harm upmerging the first category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there isn't any other category of Palestinian Christians by occupation except for religious occupation categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid misunderstandings, Peterkingiron proposed to keep one and delete the other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom. Being a Palestinian Christian is not defining in their involvement as a militant. They are not getting involved in militant activities to promote Christianity, but to promote Palestinianism. Their religion is not defining enough to justify an overlap. Especially consiering we do not have J. R. R. Tolkien in the Catholic writers category, because his writings are not inherently Catholic. These religion plus occupation categories need to have a clear reason for the overlap. There is an exception when we are dealing with ethno-religious groups. However Christian Palestinians are not an ethno-religious group, they are a religious group. Armenians in Israel and Palestine are an ethno-religious group, but Christians who are ethnically Palestinian are by default not, since their ethnicity is Palestinian, and that is not an inherently Christian ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 26 March 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:Late Antiquity and Medieval sites in Kosovo[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.
Nominator's rationale: Category is so generic as to be extremely spurious; it encompasses about ten different regimes in which Egypt ranged from a province among many to the core of an empire itself. And lumping the Turkish Mamluks and Ottomans together into "Arab Egypt" is not the best option either. I propose deleting this category as well as Category:Wars involving Arab Egypt, and assigning the wars/battles to the specific regimes. The Fatimid and Mamluk categories already exist, a Category:Battles involving Ottoman Egypt (or "involving the Egypt Eyalet") and a Category:Battles involving Ayyubid Egypt would also be useful, and what remains unassigned, mostly the battles of the Arab conquest of Egypt (which therefore don't involve any "Arab Egypt" in the first place) can be recategorized under the generic Category:Military history of Egypt or a dedicated category. Constantine ✍ 16:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split per Constantine or Merge to "Egypt" categories. The present name is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split to relevant "Egypts" (modern Egypt, Kingdom of Egypt and Khiedevate of Egypt).GreyShark (dibra) 22:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The premise that there is a clear demarcation line of Arab and pre-Arab Egypt is problematic. It supports an understanding of history that posits the transit of populations as being much more clear than they ever really are. Even more so in Egypt which retained a Christian majority population after the Islamic conquest of government. Beyond this for much of the time involved the rulers of Egypt were more Turkic than Arabic, although when the Turkic Mamlukes become culturally Arab is also a tricky question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 26 March 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:merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has just three entries, one of which is an article on the office. City is under 20,000. Mayors of communities that size are not notable just because of the office they hold. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now My personal WP:SMALLCAT cutoff is 5 articles. No objection to recreating if 2 more articles appear. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 20 February 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:People from Robbinsville Township, New Jersey[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 result of the discussion was:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:SMALLCAT is for categories with "no potential for growth", while this has potential and is growing (now at 3 entries). Accurizer (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category has more than one entry and there's no reason to believe that it won't keep on growing. Alansohn (talk) 04:31, 21 February 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: The main article for the Draughtsmen category tree is Drafter, which is a modern technical profession. I'm not convinced there were technical draughtsmen/drafters in the Baroque era. Equally, I'm not 100% certain we need a category for Baroque artists known for their drawing skills, because I fully expect every artist, etcher and architect of that time was a highly competent drawer. But if this category remains, it needs to be renamed to suit artists particulary known for their drawing skills, per Category:Drawers (artists). Sionk (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not very keen on the idea. I'm not sure why I created the category, but I do think draughtsmen is a much better name for this type of artist than "drawer" (which to me means part of a piece of furniture, as confirmed by the fact that it has to have "artist" in brackets so that people know what it means). Although I don't suppose we do need a specific category for Baroque draughtsmen - as opposed to any other period - I do know that there are lots of artist articles that use "draughtsman" or "draftsman" as a description (try a search on "was a Baroque draughtsman", and I do believe that's what such people were called for hundreds of years, because there was no other name for them. I think I'd prefer to get rid of the category altogether, if we can find somewhere else to put them. However, at the moment, the category is correctly located as a subcategory of Baroque artists.Deb (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps alternatively it could be called Category:Baroque draughtsmen (artists). There may be a good argument to say that 'draughtsmen' were something different pre-nineteenth century. Sionk (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the redirect to a disambiguation page for now. Not sure if this helps the argument but I think it makes the meaning clearer. Deb (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, draftsmen is the usual term. The category is useful for the handful of Baroque artists (Nicolas Lagneau comes to mind) who are known only for drawings. The disambiguation page Deb created will help people find what they're looking for. Ewulp (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow -- I have glanced at all the articles. All except one seemed to be famous for making engravings or etchings, rather than actually for drawing. The skill in question may involve copying a painting. The one exception is an artist who drew, rather than painted. We seem to have trees for etchers and for engravers. I wonder whether the answer is not to split. None were draughtsmen in the modern sense of those who make technical drawings. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per argumentation of Peterkingiron. Articles in this category are already categorized as etchers, engravers and/or painters, there is no need to keep this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 20 March 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: rename per actual content, these are organizations from the last decades before Albania became independent from the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Albania has been notified about this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 20 February 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:delete (as noted, there is no need to merge any of the contents). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:08, 4 March 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:no consensus to merge. This is without prejudice to any other proposal for the category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No reason to have this sub-category. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Figures includes entities that are not people. For example, it includes "The ababil were a race of birds, mentioned in the Quran"; birds are not people. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we're going to divvy these up in the Quran, why isn't it done in the whole tree of Category:Bible content? There is no category of Category:Bible figures or Category:Biblical figures...so we're mixing it up there. Indeed, there is Category:Biblical figures in Islam, which seems mostly to be people, so that should be divvied up if this division is kept for Quran. They should be treated identically, whichever is the outcome of the proposal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that whether we divvy people from non-people categories in one book, we ought do it likewise in the other, no preference for whether we do or don't, so your follow-up nomination makes the handling similar which is to the good. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The figures here are not people but angels (although I come from a religion that holds such are people, my understanding is that Islam does not hold such) and animals. I have doubts that the title figures works here. I think of figures as people, although I can see it applying here, but it does not say to me "things other than people" so we need to find a way to show these are not people, but they are not people. The she-camel of God does not go in the Qu'ranic people category. Support the angels and animals goal. That makes sense. In at least some theologies angels are seen as above people and animals below them, so a category that mergers the two does not really make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 26 March 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.
Relisted at 2016 APR 8 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
