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. Timrollpickering 07:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, assuming that all mystics in these categories are Christians (which I have not checked). The Roman category should be excluded, since it is separately nominated below. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 2 October 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. Timrollpickering 07:54, 6 October 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:Articles presenting hypothesis as fact[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:Delete. Timrollpickering 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty with no known parser error, template, or module to populate it. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 29 September 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:Merge. Timrollpickering 07:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Sailfin roughshark) is found in a particular European country is non-defining. Example previous similar CFDs: vertebrates/Europe. For info: All previous non-bot edits to these categories are by now-blocked editor(s). DexDor(talk) 19:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerging and then deletion: typical examples of the over-detailed categories created by this blocked editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:58, 29 September 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: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all these categories contain only one article and/or one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - which means that it is not permitted to nominate one or a few subcategories of an overall scheme that happen to be small just by chance while adjacent siblings are big enough to keep. The guideline makes perfect sense, but is not applicable here: it is the scheme itself that is being discussed (up to a certain point), not random parts of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is 1800 chosen as a cut-off? Is this not a random lopping off of much of the tree? Also Smithfield Show for instance will be taken out of Category:Recurring events altogether. Oculi (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not random because before 1800 the categories are consistently small. With the proposed merge Smithfield Show will remain in the 1799 tree and it will remain in the agricultural shows tree hence in the tree of recurring events. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the large amount of these (ancient, medieval and early modern) recurring events are festivals and the festivals are already diffused by time. So there is no real need to create a parallel recurring events tree for older centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 5 October 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. Timrollpickering 07:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The concept martyr is alien to Buddhist doctrine, and hardly occurs in relevant scholarship. Standard reference works such as the Encyclopedia of Buddhism[1] and the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism[2] do not mention the term at all, and the Pali-English Dictionary[3] has one passing mention of the word, which is Greek and only mentioned for etymological reasons, with no bearing on Buddhist doctrine. The concept that a good Buddhist should give his life for his religion is known, but it is differently understood than in Christianity, and I wonder whether it is useful and correct to use Christian terminology to describe another religion.Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 14:44, 29 September 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:upmerge, we do not usually categorize people as descending of one particular ancestor. Note about the target: the Borjigin were the clan of Genghis Khan's ancestors and successors in the Mongol Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should make an exception for him. He appears to have fathered more children than anyone else in the world. Rathfelder (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was before the DNA evidence - His descents, it is suggested, amount to more than a million. Rathfelder (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The DNA evidence would be applicable to the entire Borjigin (merge target). The DNA of Genghis Khan's nephews and grandparents would surely be closer to his own than the DNA of a 20th-century descendant. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no objection to a sourced listification. Being descended from Genghis Khan is not inherently notable nor defining. Presumably these folks did more than have some (perhaps infinitesimally small) fraction of DNA in common with Genghis Khan. One could repeat nearly all the "keep" arguments for Category:Descendants of Queen Victoria or Category:Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark both of whose descendants are written about as descendants and many have little claim to notability but for derivative of their lineage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlos. If he has millions of descendants, most have nothing to do with him. Cannot be considered defining or meaningful to an individual after the fall of the Mongol Empire. Catrìona (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(as nom) I would be okay with delete, instead of merge as nominated, after all we also have the Category:Mongol khans which contains the more relevant subset of descendants of Genghis Khan. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 7 October 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:Best Picture Academy Award nominated films[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:category was speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per previousdiscussions, we don't add cats for films that are nominated in a given category, even if it is the Oscars. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. There is no need for another discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 29 September 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:Pages using infobox officeholder with an atypical party value[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:category was speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful. Usually it's caused by people who have switched parties or are affiliated with multiple parties at once. I don't see the need for tracking all of them. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, I just declined a proposal for speedy deletion of this category per G7/user request; I declined it because you were not the person making the request. But if you want to make a request yourself for speedy deletion per G7, it will probably get honored. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, no problem, I usually wait until the category is empty before tagging it with G7 (the server is still recaching the pages). Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 30 September 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.
Relisted at 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
