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: As currently titled, this category is easily confused with Category:Songs written by Irving Berlin. Given that the category's description states that it is meant to include any articles related to Irving Berlin, it would be more appropriate as an eponymous category. Ibadibam (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator – I'd also be open to deletion, since the actual page for "articles in which Irving Berlin is mentioned" is Special:WhatLinksHere/Irving Berlin. Ibadibam (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom or delete. Category:Songs by artist has very specific criteria, namely "this category is for songs by recording artist". Oculi (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge, there are quite a few articles that aren't about Irving Berlin and should be purged, but there's just enough usable material to keep a biographical category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Purge And remove that crazy hatnote. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:06, 27 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:Burial sites of the Trpimirović dynasty[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:delete, these categories do not contain any sites, in the final rungs there are just people and these people are - not coincidentally - the same people as in the parent category Category:Trpimirović dynasty. It's a sort of circular categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If there were articles on the churches, it would make sense to have these categories, but as it is, they're not really doing anything. Ibadibam (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, these make no sense and aren't defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- These are articles on church which are Performing the role of a burial site for many people. This will cause enormous category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 28 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:split. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlike Anti-fascism and Anti-racism, two political movements with a considerable tradition, Anti-neo-Nazi activism is not at all a commonly used term. It is therefore not surprising that, after all the years, the category still doesn't have a main article. With most categorized organizations or projects explicitly committing themselves either to anti-racism, or more specifically to anti-fascism, I don't see any useful criteria to distinguish an "Anti-neo-Nazi-activism" that isn't correctly categorized by the anti-fascism or anti-racism categories. --PanchoS (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only to the Anti-fascism target -- I would merely comment that some of the Anti-fascists are about as bad as the Fascists. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to anti-fascist – Most anti-fascist organizations are also anti-racist organizations, but the converse is not necessarily true. Each article should be considered individually to determine whether it belongs in one or both of the target categories. Ibadibam (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to anti-fascist. Neo-nazism is a form of fascism and the opposition is a variant of anti-fascism. Actual stance on issues of racism may vary wildly. Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the split. Some of the articles should be placed in Category:Anti-racism/Category:Anti-racist organizations and probably are more appropriately placed there than than in Category:Anti-fascism/Category:Anti-fascist organizations. For instance, Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice seems to be more about anti-racism than anti-fascism. I agree that all of the articles should not be merged into both of the targets, but that's not what was proposed. What was proposed was to split them between the two categories, as appropriate. That may mean an article goes in one, or the other, or both. I support the initial nomination, not a blanket merge to anti-fascist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:21, 7 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) 08:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I fail to see how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category:Sibling, which is too small for splitting. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the words sibling and siblinghood are not interchangeable. One refers to a biological or legal relationship. The other refers to the social and cultural ramifications of that relationship. It is as different as the articles car and Formula One. See for example Category:Fatherhood. Hawaan12 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The words are not interchangeable but it is a distinction that is not needed in the category system—only one category is needed for this topic. Since the nominated category is brand new and the target category is older, I agree with the direction of the nomination and suggest placing a category redirect on Category:Siblinghood. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- They are effectively the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The distinction between the two terms made above isn't sufficient to warrant separate categorization of Wikipedia articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:35, 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.
