Category:Catholic congregations established in the 16th century[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 (and selectively merge contents). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that in the Catholic Church a congregation has nothing to do with the way the word is used for local church organizations in these categories, in a confusion with a parish. I am not at first sight convinced by the merge outcome, as the only content here which is not a church building is Category:Congregations of the Roman Curia, which were not all established in the 16th century. These establishment categories by century should be for individual organizations, not categories about types of organizations. Place Clichy (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete -- I do not like the idea of merger to organisations. "congregation" is used here in two contexts Congregations of the Roman Curia and local churches. The latter are usually dealt with by categorising as church buildings, though there is a case for having a category for the date when a local church was established, where it still exists but not in its original building. In these cases we need categories both for the foundation of the local church and the erection of its current building. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC above. --Just N. (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (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 does not contain categories like "2010 by war", but rather "Syrian civil war by year", so this is the correct name. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; if it contained 2010 by war, that would belong in Category:Wars by year. IMHO it is correct as it stands. The sub-cats contain categories for years, grouped by war. I understand the confusion, though. – FayenaticLondon 22:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful for you to stop proposing speedy renames that are contrary to your !vote here, such as at Category:Syrian civil war by year. Leave the contents alone until this has been decided. William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I did not think that it was contrary, but OK, I will hold that one for now. – FayenaticLondon 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really shouldn't have happened in the middle of discussion. Now it will have to be speedy renamed back. William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it contains subcategories with wars by year. The subcategories should all have a "by year" format too. The topic is the war, the split is by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support. I apologise for confusing myself and possibly others. I was going by what is in the sub-cats, but this category should of course be named according to what is in itself. – FayenaticLondon 11:54, 2 February 2021 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division.
Merge. These categories all have less than ten articles, and mostly a lot less. Rathfelder (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom and previous discussions. Oculi (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have said before I would oppose if I were to "vote", due to the categories growing, thus WP:SMALLCAT not applying. So, how are we handling this? Are we doing what was proposed in the last discussion, i.e. upmerging categories with few (less than 5) articles, and recreating them only when there are enough members to "justify" them? --Antondimak (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The working consensus is usually 5 articles (which I agree with) but I would prefer WP:SMALLCAT was more specific so editors knew up front what to expect in CFD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Is there a "hidden" rule that isn't well explained? --Antondimak (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any cities or towns with 5 articles besides Livadeia and Thebes and the proposal is not to keep 3rd and 4th level divisions unless it concerns a populated place with at least 5 articles. This is consistent with other countries, where we also categorize people by first (and sometimes second) level country division, then by city or town irrespective of their administrative status. As William Allen Simpson notes below, Greece is actually a very small country for also categorizing by second level division, but let's discuss that later. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at Germany for example, and I see the same 4-level structure, so I don't know how this is consistent with other countries unless I'm missing something. It seems to have 3rd level divisions when there are enough articles in them or in their sub-categories (take Category:People from Erlangen-Höchstadt for example, it is a 3rd-level division shouldn't exist if we apply the same standard we are setting here to Germany, and should be merged to Category:People from Middle Franconia). We are going by article count, but since you mentioned population ("small country"), we should also keep in mind that most of there regions have 3 millenia of recorded history, therefore making current population a not so good estimator for the expected number of notable people, especially considering Greece's massive urbanisation and depopulation of most areas apart from Athens and Thessaloniki in the last decades. --Antondimak (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Germany is exceptional with category layers for three levels of administrative divisions and that is overcategorization too. But at least there it does not lead to an endless amount of micro categories.Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to. In this case we could follow the 5-article rule of thumb to see which categories to merge and which not, because now it seems all 3rd-level division categories will be deleted, despite the amount of articles in them. --Antondimak (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — This is a good start, a bit more aggressive than I'd been doing, and probably not the final state. If we were to do this with Michigan alone, we'd have 20 regions. Needlesstosay, we don't do that, and nobody else does that! Should be targeting at least one million population. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune. William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow -- The proposal about merging to intermediate levels first would be feasible, but it is probably best to do it as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. —Just N. (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2021 (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:Alumni of the University of Oxford by matriculation year[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford is subcategorised by college. Subcategorisation by matriculation year is WP:OVERCAT. I have checked that all five articles in these categories are included in an Oxford college alumni article. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If we split this at all it should be by graduation year (when they left) not matriculation year (when they qualified to go to Oxford). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent as Fayenatic london points out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete down this course lies madness. We do not want to go this way. Often matriculation year will not be known, and even if it is this is too fine a way to categorize people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since we already have lots of sub-categories for alumni by college, and also the whole Rhodes scholars tree, this will lead to people being in 2-3 categories just for the fact they attended Oxford. This is not what we want. One category for university attendance, 2 at the most is a good system. This will break a good system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. --Just N. (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2021 (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:WP:C2A, standard capitalisation. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Almost all articles are called "Trade Hall" so that this is a correctly capitalised compound noun. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contents are mostly specific places that are formal nouns: "Tony's Restaurant" versus "restaurant". - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Peterkingiron's opposition is valid (I don't think it is), then logically the category should be renamed something like "Buildings named 'Trades Hall' in Australia" (and the other pages removed from the category) if the intent is to only include buildings with that proper name. But surely the purpose of the building is more of a defining characteristic than it's name. The building is typically described as being a trades hall [common noun, lower case] building - the name of the building is not its defining characteristic. One does not say "Perth Trades Hall is a building named Trades Hall". Supposing the CFMEU decided to rename that building to "CFMEU house" - would that mean we must remove it from the category? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (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:delete, it is questionable whether these people (mostly pharaohs of Egypt) have existed at all, and the time of birth is even more uncertain. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 32BC births if possible. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- These are Pre-dynastic Pharaohs of whom we know next to nothing, barely even their names and certainly not their dates. Egyptian chronology is normally done by dynasty, not century, as the sole source for much of the chronology is regnal lists. One is categorised as a 33rd-C ruler but a 32nd-C birth, implying that he ruled before he was born! In any event, millenium categories are a waste of space, as human history is only in its 7th millennium. Nowhere is there any history (as opposed to archaeology) before this period, less than 6000 years ago. For archaeology, dates can be estimated in millennia (or even 10,000 years) but at that period we should have no century categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 4th millennium as the first of a series, which are now linked to each other using {{navseasoncats}}; merge 32nd century to 4th millennium, since the next century with a category is 27th. – FayenaticLondon 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Selectively Upmerge Kushim (Uruk Period) - Fish (pharaoh), Stork (pharaoh) and Finger Snail are of dubious historicity even if later lists of rulers retroactively place them in this time period and, anyway, they are already in Pharaoh categories by this time period. Kushim (Uruk Period) is too boring not to be historical and should be kept in the tree though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both — millennial categories are very small, as they will only contain a maximum of 10 centuries, and have no real historical relevance. Am not opposed to selective merge to Category:Uruk Period, but that doesn't seem to be well-defined. William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short of new archaeological finds, I don't think there is. - RevelationDirect (talk)
Delete not sure we should categorize possibly existing people by their conjectured year of birth (assuming that they were born). fails WP:V. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a category for far too little. We do not need to categorize by everything we can.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2021 (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:delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost an empty category. –Cupper52Discuss! 12:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is a valid category under WP:SMALLCAT, i.e. it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (Category:Football managers in England by club) and also has the potential to grow over time when the club appoint new managers. Number57 12:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very doubtful -- This is club in a low tier of English football, far too low to need anything more than a single club article. However I do not normally vote on football issues, being unfamiliar with what is permissible in perhaps the 8th tier of football. I note there is also a players category, which should probably be considered with this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually a fan of SMALLCAT, but say 3 as a minimum of articles for it to be justified. This catgory however only has 1, with very limited scope for expansion. GiantSnowman 16:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2021 (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: Empty category –Cupper52Discuss! 12:33, 30 January 2021 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a wholly redundant layer. We can also upmerge Category:31st-century BC women rulers and cognate cats (but ensuring they remain also in a Women rulers category. The targets ought mainly to be containers, with articles being moved into a "Sumerian rulers" category where appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The added layer does not aid navigation for these time periods and, until new discoveries are dug up, growth potential is limited. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am trying to create categories for the Sumerian rulers from these eras. There is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those may also become direct subcategories of Rulers instead of indirectly via Monarchs. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the difference between monarch and ruler is speculative as those concepts have different meanings today than they did 2000 years ago, much less 4000 years ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2021 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, 1-4 articles per category (excluding mayors who have their own tree anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now with no objection to recreating later if they ever exceed expectations and get up to 5+ non-mayor articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now. --Just N. (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2021 (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. All participants agreed that the category should not exist. There was no consensus on whether to merge or delete outright, so I am defaulting to merge to retain some of the categorization information. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, trivial intersection between gender and ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and also upmerge the male artists, male musicians, male singers and male writers subcategories to the non-gendered parent, keeping only actors and models as categories usually diffused into both genders (although I am not sure of the notability of the ethnic intersection at this step). Place Clichy (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Category:Male scientists (discussion) and Category:American businessmen of Indian descent (discussion), other creation by the same user with similar merits, were recently deleted with a similar rationale. Place Clichy (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these categories are supposed to be container categories. So if we keep it we need to change it to just being a container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be the container category in this case? I do not really think that Category:American people of Indian descent should be a container category, as that would mean that the diffusion in trivial occupation/gender categories would be the default, the opposite of WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2021 (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:delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background We previously deleted another combination poetry award/publishing offer from a university right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and predecent. Just N. (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2021 (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:delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a main article on this award and the redirect points to the American Society for Aesthetics which list 3 different awards they issue without much detail. The 5 articles in this category are about split between those that mention the award in passing and those that don't mention it at all. I copied the category contents here and here so no information is lost if anyone wants to find reliable sources to establish notablity for a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of overcategorization by award. The fact that we average at least 2 of these award categories nominated a day is not a good sign that our current system actually enforces the guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2021 (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.
