Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Lukovo, Kuršumlija[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:upmerge most, keep Belgrade. The Sarajevo categories have now expanded to 3 RC churches and 3 Orthodox, so I'm closing the nominated one as no consensus. As a consequence of the merger, Category:Churches in Szentendre becomes empty and will also be deleted under WP:G6. – FayenaticLondon 18:41, 11 March 2017
Nominator's rationale: Ultra-categorization, these categories will only house 1-2 articles. Note that Lukovo, Kuršumlija is a village with 300~ inhabitants. The category creator Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro has created many similar categories.--Zoupan 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The categories have all the minimum requirements demanded by wikipedia, they are similar to thousands of similar categories that organize buildings by country, region, city locality and in this case by Christian denomination. Are useful to the wikipedia user because they allow you to easily find a group of buildings per city of each religion in an organized way. The user who made the request without consulting before removed the categories of the articles leaving them empty which is close to being vandalism. I accept the decisions of the community, and I hope to consider the work done without animating to annoy other users--Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This seems like a pretty straightforward instance of WP:SMALLCAT, but should more articles appear in the future, I think it would be ok to recreate categories as appropriate. Also, I'd like to thank both the nominator and the category creator for bringing the dispute to CfD instead of escalating into an edit war. Ibadibam (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair enough, you should then tag these other categories and add them to the list here. It surprises me though that the Belgrade category is empty, as I would expect that would be the first (and perhaps only) one to keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Discussion continues with more categories added to the nomination. My first vote can be disregarded. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Assuming there is nothing that needs a merge back to the Serbian category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' The user Zoupan, with bad intencion empty the category of Serbian orthodox churches of belgrade (7 articles) to later submit it to vote as an empty category, clearly there is a bad intention. I suspect it has religious reasons to attack such categories so hard and ignore thousands of other similar categories .. As I said before the categories only follow a standard very used in wikipedia that is to organize religious buildings based on a denomination, such So that if the wikipedia user wants to consult articles of Orthodox Catholic or Protestant churches can do it with ease instead of having to review a single large category, if the user wants to consult articles of churches in Baroque, Byzantine, etc. style is the same, If the user wants to consult articles of the eighteenth, nineteenth or twentieth century is the same..is a very common model in wikipedia. --Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Assuming none has a (potential) substantial number of fitting churches, single cats at Serbian level should suffice Arcarius (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro reached out to me on my talk page about this. I'm fine with town/city level cats for church buildings in some cases (see Category:Roman Catholic churches in Rome, where I think it makes complete sense). At the same time, I don't see the need for these particular categories and I think they could go in a general category for denominational churches in Serbia. Any merging to those categories that is needed can also take place. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is yet another case of a proposal to delete which should have been presented as a proposal to merge to multiple targets. For example, if Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belgrade is to be eliminated, then it should be merged to both Category:Churches in Belgrade and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Serbia. Deletion instead of merge is likely to articles being removed from categories in which they belong, and no rationale has been presented to support that. In cases where the categories are too small, the locality aspect should be preserved by merger to a regional category. And some of the categories are adequately sized -- for example, Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Belgrade contains 12 pages, so it should be kept. @Zoupan: why did you include that one? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoupan: Even if the articles are dual-categorised when the nomination is made, there is no guarantee that this won't be fixed by the time the discussion is closed, because per WP:SUBCAT they should not be in both a category and its parent. So best to implement a merger rather than deletion, to ensure that nothing gets lost. As to Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Belgrade and Category:Roman Catholic churches in Belgrade, please note that Category:Churches by city is very well-developed, and includes a well-developed set of subcats by religion, including over 500 subcats of Category:Roman Catholic churches by city. Categorising churches by religion and city is well-established, so unless you can establish a consensus for some reason to treat Serbia as an exception to this widespread norm, then there is no reason to merge only the Serbian ones. OTOH, if you have a rationale for upmerging churches-by-religion-and-city in general, the solution is a group nomination for them all, rather than just randomly picking ouit the Serbian churches. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those over 500 subcats were not present prior to Warairarepano&Guaicaipuro. There are towns and villages included. Most have 1–3 articles (definition of SMALLCAT). I don't view that as a "norm". Also, 'Serbian Orthodox' is not a denomination, 'Eastern Orthodox' is. The subject of this nomination is these above listed categories. I deal with categorizing daily, and see this overcategorization in Balkans-related articles as superfluous. When expansion warrants sub-categorization, I will be the first to support.--Zoupan 03:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't formally voted yet since more categories have been added to the nomination, but as can be guessed from the above contribution I would prefer deleting (merging) most nominated categories, except keeping and populating the ones for Belgrade. It looks like this is a nice middle position between the other participants to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 25 February 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 current name is a little unclear, and might be read to imply that the members are lists of food types, where they're actually lists of dishes, organized by type. Ibadibam (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Lists of foods, the type of content in this category is very similar to what is in the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 28 January 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: This eponymous category contains 3 albums plus the main article. The albums are already correctly categorised as Category:Bambata (music project) albums (nominated to speedy rename to match the main article). There is not enough material to justify having a category to hold the main article plus a subcategory. Tassedethe (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing in WP:EPONYMOUS that proscribes this category, but given the limited potential for growth, I'd think that WP:SMALLCAT dictates deletion in this case. Ibadibam (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – one subcat is not enough to justify an eponymous category. Oculi (talk) 02:37, 22 January 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:merge. – FayenaticLondon 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, too little content, there is currently just one subcategory and no articles in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be merged, as Medieval Cilicia is a long period, and even not Armenian Cilicia, as it had two states - Principality and Kingdom. Cheers, Hayk.arabaget (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Copied from creator's talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then which other category would you merge it to? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The only content of the subject is "Lords of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia" which sounds as if it could fit in the target. Even if there were two states, there is no reason why they cannot have a single parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 22 January 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.
Category:Lords of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia[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:rename, Armenian Cilicia wasn't a kingdom yet under these lords. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 21 January 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.
Category:Grandparents of Presidents of the United States[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:WP:Overcategorization; being related to a President (except for maybe spouses) isn't exactly a key trait overall. It's better to just discuss relations within article prose instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at the people in this category shows most wouldn't have an article if they were not grandparent to a president. That seems to be only notable item for most of them. Calvin Galusha Coolidge? Roseohioresident (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If any people only have articles at the moment because of their Presidential grandchildren, then they don't warrant articles at all since notability isn't inherited and this would mean such subjects fail WP:Notability (people) when not noted for anything meaningful outside of family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I can understajnd categories for immwediate relatives of US presidents, I see no reason for categories for more distant relatives. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- The notability of the grandparents is "inherited" from their grandson. If notable enough to merit articles of their own putting them in a Presidential families tree should be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering that most of them died prior to their grandsons becoming President. With regard to the question raised in this discussion regarding individual articles on presidential grandparents should exist, I think that is a discussion for AfD except for the ones who were notable in their own right such as William Henry Harrison, John F. Fitzgerald, and Prescott Bush.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:39, 29 January 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.
Withdraw nomination on behalf of {{SPI case status|relist}}. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 05:39, 21 January 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.
