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 to Category:Korean clans by clan village. The current category name is inaccurate, and while renaming it to the new title isn't perfect, it better reflects the category's contents. ℯxplicit 07:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this category tagged for speedy renaming to "Clans based in Korea", i.e. just removing "Lists of". The nomination had not been listed for discussion. After inspecting the member sub-cats, which are all "Clans based in location [city or county]", I suggest that "Korean clans by location" would be more useful. However, I do not know exactly what "based in" refers to, as a few of the locations are in China rather than Korea. – FayenaticLondon 21:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Garam: "Surnames by clan" does not fit the contents. To take an example, the first sub-category is Category:Clans based in Andong which contains Gim clan of Andong, Gwon clan of Andong and Jang clan of Andong. These categories are stated to be clans, rather than surnames; and Andong is not a clan. Moreover, the contents of these sub-categories are not articles about surnames, but individual biographies.
If you mean that Gim, Gwon and Jang are surnames as well as clans, then would Category:Korean surnames by clan village fit the meaning? If so, this may be the clearest way to put this in English. – FayenaticLondon 17:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Umm, it is a translation of the category name in Korean Wikipedia.
Well, a "birthplace of clan's first ancestor" (Gwanhyang) became a part of clan's name in Korea. And most clan's people settled near regions, and it became "clan village" (Jipseongchon). But this doesn't exactly mean that the clan's all people live (or lived) in the region or a region on clan name is always Gwanhyang. Also, Korean clan name is region and surname: e.g. 김해 김씨; "Gimhae" as region and "Gim" as clan name. So, Gwanhyang is an important to differentiate a region name of clan from other clan names in Korea. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note that the subcategories are very poorly populated, so I wonder whether this category and its subcategories are useful at all. For example Category:Gim clan of Ansan is a subcategory of Category:Gim clans, most obviously, so why does it also need to be a subcategory of Category:Clans based in Ansan while there is only one clan based in Ansan? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Umm, as far as i know, Korean clan names based in Ansan is at least three; An, Gim and Yi. And if you include Jipseongchons, it is more than ten, I think. But unfortunately, now there is only one article about it in English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not only is there only one subcategory, but also only one article in that one subcategory. I really think this this tree is too soon, to begin with. Also at a more fundamental level I do not understand why we would have clan categories as subcategories of location while people may no longer live there. For comparison, we have Category:Families by nationality but we do not have Category:Families by location. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it may be that the location of the clan village (birthplace of the clan's ancestor) is not WP:defining for the contents of the sub-categories, in which case all the subcategories should be nominated for deletion. Alternatively, perhaps it is defining but they are poorly named, if the clans are not actually "based in" the stated cities, some of which are in China. But for now, only this parent category has been nominated, and its name "Lists" is clearly wrong, so it should at least be renamed to something. The grandchild categories are all named "[surname] clan of [place]", and the articles within them are not surnames but individual biographies. Therefore (i) those grandchild categories are clans, rather than surnames; and (ii) IMHO the best that we can do here is rename to Category:Korean clans by clan village. – FayenaticLondon 11:22, 21 June 2018 (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 page seems to have been moved in the past follwing the renaming of its corresponding article to a specific organisation (Sufi Order Ināyati). While content-wise that article move might have appropriate, the category should have stayed at the broader religious stream, especially since the category also contains other organisations which are more like sisters than daughters of Sufi Order Inayati (see Template talk:Ināyati Sufis for the explanation I got for why there are two identical sidebar templates). HyperGaruda (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea actually. I'll get to it once the CfD closes; would not want to run into the situation having to revert stuff again. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since the term 'Universal Sufism' is too broad and universal to merit any single category or article entry. As per the relevant Sufism article section we would have to include all sorts of people and organizations in it. If anything, it should correspond with the name of the relevant article, currently Inayati Order. Ernobe (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Sufism is not any broader than Category:Sufism and that is my point. A Universal Sufism category would in my opinion be incomplete without a main article, and the Inayati Order article is too narrow a fit. Ernobe (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And guess who turned the main article about the general belief system into the narrow version it is today... --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some Sufi groups take on students regardless of whether or not they are Muslim, yet they are Muslims themselves. The name Universal Sufism has been applied to groups which focus primarily on attracting non-Muslim students. Therefore, a more consistent name for this category might be Western Sufism. Ernobe (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2018 (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:Women mayors of places in British Columbia[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: Subcategorization by province of a category which does not meet the conditions required to qualify for an exemption from WP:OCLOCATION: the intersection of "women mayor" with individual province is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right, and the parent category isn't large enough to require diffusion as there are only 144 articles across this entire tree combined. Upmerging to "mayors of places in (Province)" not required, as all of the articles here were left in there alongside this if they weren't already subcatted by city in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (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: I thought this was a clear case of WP:PERFCAT (plus previously deleted following listifying in 2007 along with all other "actors by series" categories), however, my removal of the category from pages, pending my speedy deletion of it, was deemed "rude" as I had not discussed it, so I decided to discuss it instead of continuing. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been taken to cfd before unilaterally reverting a great many of my edits without having the politeness to speak to me at all. You should also include Category:Hollyoaks Actresses which I created at the same time. Both categories would have more than a hundred entrys each when filled. WP:PERFCAT is only a guideline not a policy to be enforced by mass reverting edits. No reason is given for the guideline and whereas it would obviously apply to a series of just a few seasons I think there is a case for exceptions to be made for very long series such as Hollyoaks which has run for more than 20 years. Having a seperate category from British soapopera actors helps the Hollyoaks fans (of which there are a great number but not me!) to find what they are looking for quickly instead of wading through many irrelevant entries, and the cast lists at Hollyoaks main article are split over 3 or more pages and divided by year which can make searching difficult and this category would aid searches and be an alternative method to the Hollyoaks articles. The same arguments apply to the Hollyoaks actresses category, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding Category:Hollyoaks actresses to this nomination as obviously any argument for one will apply to the other. I didn't realise this one had been created. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 08:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERFCAT. Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus against using the category system to categorize actors or actresses by individual show or film that they've appeared in. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify valid to have a list of performers and the characters they played on a long-running show, though not suitable as a category without further context. SFB 21:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of performance categories. We need to realize there is no easy way to subdivide actors into small categories and accept having very large categories, becuase the other option is having way too much category clutter per article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, have emptied the cats and speedied them. Instead will take up the suggestion of a list of cast members by alphabet as at present there are only lists of Hollyoaks characters sorted by year. If anyone objects please let me know, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2018 (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:Far-left political parties in Israel[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.
Comment, there is something odd about Category:Far-left political parties. I would expect a huge amount of articles about far-left political parties to exist, with a full category diffusion by country, but in fact there are only a few dozens of articles and only two country subcats in Category:Far-left political parties. Has it perhaps been partially emptied by an editor e.g. in favor in Category:Communist parties? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2018 (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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 11:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename per article Tax policy. It wasn't listed as the main article, so WP:C2D may not be applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don’t see any titles containing the word fiscal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tax policy is a subset of fiscal policy, not a related but separate one. SFB 21:53, 1 May 2018 (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.
