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. Consistency with other categories is desirable, and the Olympics do use "Republic of"; although they also used the words "Former Yugoslav", WP:NCMAC says that is not to be followed in Wikipedia. I do not think that decision forbids the use of "Republic of" here. – FayenaticLondon 15:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Despite the name, these categories have nothing to do with Archelaus I of Macedon or his victories in the Ancient Olympic Games. They are only concerned with the modern Olympics and the modern state of the Republic of Macedonia. The region of Macedonia now includes parts of Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. By the way, only the first rename is over re-direct. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've deleted the "over re-direct" from the others. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC recognized Macedonia as The Former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaSportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK so it's not complete nonsense, but on the other hand the Macedonian Olympic Committee on their website (see http://mok.org.mk/site/mok) simply mentions Republic of Macedonia in the body text, which is the name that we're all used to. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this link, I wasn't aware of this and perhaps more editors in this discussion weren't. The question still is, per nominator, if these categories may wrongly be interpreted to cover the ancient kingdom of Macedonia as well. WP:NCMAC does make an exception for that kind of ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then the place to start is the main article, not the categories. Timrollpickering 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is NCMAC even policy? The discussion looks more like a vote that didn't come to a resolution. How binding is it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It came out of an ArbCom case and was determined by a panel of administrators. Timrollpickering 21:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By three admins, none of who have been editing for the best part of six years each. Maybe WP:CCC? LugnutsFire Walk with Me 18:00, 29 April 2017 (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: same topic, could be merged to match the current category tree for university associations Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2017 (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.
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:merge or reverse merge, categories are not distinct enough to keep them separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one into the other and then rename the target to Category:Fuqahā'. See Faqīh, which covers the subject of scholars of Islamic jurisprudence (Fuqahā' is the plural of Faqīh); category names should match the names of articles about related subjects. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all I would suggest that the target should have an English name, not an Arabic one, with the Arabic one being kept as a cat-redirect. This is the English WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the other two categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2017 (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:WP:SOFTDELETE. The category currently contains Mohammad Amin Sheikho who is noted for interpretation, and Ibn al-Jazari who is noted for pronunciation/recitation, Qira'at. I will re-categorise the latter in Category:Quran reciters. However, there may be scope to recreate this category with al-Jazari and similar scholars. – FayenaticLondon 16:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge or reverse merge, the two categories aren't different enough to kept separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2017 (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 parent category itself isn't so large, with only around 117 articles in it, so why have a sub category which has only 10 articles? Kailash29792(talk) 05:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created separately for Indian films as these kind of films are also being made in Indian cinema, I felt that Indian cinema too deserves credit coming up with science fiction interspersed with humour. If you feel that this category lacks enough content you can merge it. Srivin (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories have nothing to do with what the topic does or doesn't "deserve credit" for. They have to do with WP:DEFINING characteristics of the topic, period. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We don't need a comprehensive set of national subcategories for every individual subgenre of science fiction films — Category:Indian science fiction films itself is enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2017 (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.
