- 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: no consensus. I'm not certain that this discussion has managed to nail down exactly what a "Hingu revivalist" is. And if we're not sure what it is, how can we be positive that it's not a defining characteristic for those so categorized? I think all users have the sense at least that we need to figure this out, and User:Kautilya3's comment suggests that "Hindu revivalism" is a "thing" that has a specific meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete since "revivalists" is not a defining characteristic of the articles of this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere. Revivalists refers to a variety of Christian evanglist, principally in USA, but slso used elsewhere (though usually under other names). The headnote seems to suggest that this is about thinkers engaged in dealing with conflicts between Hinuism and the modern world. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- No objection against merging to Category:Hindus (although many articles are already in this tree). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- A better merge target is Category:Hindu activists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
OpposeComment - The phenomenon of "Hindu revivalism" is well-recognized, even though we don't yet have full-scale scholarly treatment of the subject. Here are some references. [1] [2] [3] [4] - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Elst, Koenraad (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu Mind — Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism. Rupa & Co. ISBN 8171675190.
-
^
Andersen, Walter K.; Damle, Shridhar D. (1987) [Originally published by Westview Press]. The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism. Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
{{ cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv( help) - ^ Saha, Santosh C. (1995–1996). "Religious Revivalism among the Hindus in India: Ideologies of the Fundamentalist Movements in Recent Decades". Indian Journal of Asian Affairs. 8/9 (1/2): 35–54. JSTOR 41950388.
- ^ Kumar, Krishna (1990). "Hindu Revivalism and Education in North-Central India". Social Scientist. 18 (10): 4–26. JSTOR 3517376.
- Fair enough about the phenomenon, but that's not sufficient for categorization. People in this category should be well known for being a revivalist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rename - After some checking, I find that "revivalist" has a more specific meaning in English than merely an advocate of "revivalism," which wouldn't be appropriate for these people. So perhaps we could rename the category to "Hindu revivalist activists" (even though it is a mouthful) or something similar. "Hindu revivalism" has a well-established meaning, and there are also technical meanings of "revivalist" used in sociology and political science, e.g., [1]. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. MER-C 12:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't seem that different than the WrestleMania venues categories that was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_29#Category:WrestleMania_venues and before that. All this is doing is listing multipurpose arenas that hosted a match without naming the particular circuit. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:OCVENUE. - Eureka Lott 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OCVENUE is bad as WP:OC#PERF, in leading to category clutter. The locations categorised are multipurpose venues, hosting a wide range of activities. In contrast Football stadiums mainly host football; and theatres mainly host drama, though both are perioducally used for other purposes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per others. None of these are venues specifically built for pro wrestling, and therefore their pro wrestling use is not defining. Except for maybe the ECW Arena, but then it'd be a category of one. oknazevad ( talk) 04:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Shia Muslim scholars of Islam to Category:Scholars of Shia Islam
- Nominator's rationale: The category shouldn't be about the religious background of the scholar, but about the object of the studies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Their field of study is the important thing. In practice, almost all those in the target will be Shia Muslims, but that is by the way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The target is totally different than the present category. We have Category:Muslim scholars of Islam of which this is a reasonable sub-category. As long as the parent category exists, this one should. The scholars here are not neccesarily specifically studying Shia Islam, they are studying Islam in a way informed by their being Shia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the target is different. It should be different though, there is no reason why atheist or Christian scholars of Shia Islam shouldn't be categorized together with Shia Muslims. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question to @ Marcocapelle: You could simply create a parent category, but are there any atheist or Christian scholars of Islam who are, in a defining way, specialists on Shia Islam? – Fayenatic L ondon 09:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, definitely. I must admit I was just irritated by the fact that the category structure - as is - just simply seems to assume that all scholars of Shia Islam are Shia Muslims. I don't have any concrete evidence that in practice this is a false assumption though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Over to you with this one, thanks, R'n'B. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name " Washington" is ambiguous, and other categories relating to the U.S. state have the parenthetical; for example Category:Wikipedians in Washington (state) and Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington (state). R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question to
R'n'B: it seems a reasonable rationale, but implementation would be fiddly. I looked at some pages, and only a minority use {{WikiProject United States|WA=Yes|needs-photo=yes}} for which the template could probably be re-coded. 5 out of 6 were populated using {{Image requested|in=Washington}}, and those pages would need to be manually edited, perhaps using
WP:AWB. Would you be willing to do the work? –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
09:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, not a problem. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale:, the two categories seem to have an identical purpose, many articles are in both categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – metropolitan is the equivalent of archbishop, subcat of Category:Metropolitan bishops. The second one should be renamed per Category:Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church (or all should be renamed per Mar Thoma Syrian Church). Oculi ( talk) 09:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- If the nominated category will be kept, support rename to Category:Metropolitans of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church per main article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment in order to have a better overview I've reclassified all articles to be in either one of the categories, not in both. This results in 11 metropolitans and 2 bishops. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No logic to this list. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard| — 08:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Purge and keep, some people seem not to belong in this category, but in general I can't see a reason to delete the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)- IN principle keep and purge if necessary. HOwever do we really need a category for members of a street gang, even if it is a large one? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like we do, it is a child of Category:Gangs in Chicago, Illinois. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that we group together articles about gangs, does not mean we should also group together articles about people based on being part of a gang, especially since at times membership by a specific person in a specific gang can be disputed. There is also the question of the wisdom in tagging biographies of living people as members of specific gangs, when the person in question may be 40, and have been part of the gang for 6 months when they were 16. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I took a second look and I agree with JPL in the sense that it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic and so I've struck my previous vote. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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 to Category:Indian bishops. The current contents are still already in that category, so I will implement this as a deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: None of the bishops in this category has the title Bishop of India. Nothing is lost by deleting this category because all of these bishops are already in the tree of Category:Indian bishops. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- in principle, merge to Category:Indian bishops. -- This may be the same as delete, in practice. The 3 subcats are already in the target; I have not checked the individuals. However, Might it not be better to merge both to Category:Bishops in India: most early Anglican biships will have eben English, not Indian. What is important is the see, not the nationality. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, but in practise it does not matter that much, because English-born bishops with a see in India are also in Category:Indian bishops. Let's first finish this merge before starting something else. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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: no consensus. I'm not certain that this discussion has managed to nail down exactly what a "Hingu revivalist" is. And if we're not sure what it is, how can we be positive that it's not a defining characteristic for those so categorized? I think all users have the sense at least that we need to figure this out, and User:Kautilya3's comment suggests that "Hindu revivalism" is a "thing" that has a specific meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete since "revivalists" is not a defining characteristic of the articles of this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere. Revivalists refers to a variety of Christian evanglist, principally in USA, but slso used elsewhere (though usually under other names). The headnote seems to suggest that this is about thinkers engaged in dealing with conflicts between Hinuism and the modern world. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- No objection against merging to Category:Hindus (although many articles are already in this tree). Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- A better merge target is Category:Hindu activists. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
OpposeComment - The phenomenon of "Hindu revivalism" is well-recognized, even though we don't yet have full-scale scholarly treatment of the subject. Here are some references. [1] [2] [3] [4] - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Elst, Koenraad (2001). Decolonizing the Hindu Mind — Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism. Rupa & Co. ISBN 8171675190.
-
^
Andersen, Walter K.; Damle, Shridhar D. (1987) [Originally published by Westview Press]. The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism. Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
{{ cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv( help) - ^ Saha, Santosh C. (1995–1996). "Religious Revivalism among the Hindus in India: Ideologies of the Fundamentalist Movements in Recent Decades". Indian Journal of Asian Affairs. 8/9 (1/2): 35–54. JSTOR 41950388.
- ^ Kumar, Krishna (1990). "Hindu Revivalism and Education in North-Central India". Social Scientist. 18 (10): 4–26. JSTOR 3517376.
- Fair enough about the phenomenon, but that's not sufficient for categorization. People in this category should be well known for being a revivalist. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rename - After some checking, I find that "revivalist" has a more specific meaning in English than merely an advocate of "revivalism," which wouldn't be appropriate for these people. So perhaps we could rename the category to "Hindu revivalist activists" (even though it is a mouthful) or something similar. "Hindu revivalism" has a well-established meaning, and there are also technical meanings of "revivalist" used in sociology and political science, e.g., [1]. Cheers, Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. MER-C 12:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't seem that different than the WrestleMania venues categories that was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_29#Category:WrestleMania_venues and before that. All this is doing is listing multipurpose arenas that hosted a match without naming the particular circuit. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:OCVENUE. - Eureka Lott 21:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OCVENUE is bad as WP:OC#PERF, in leading to category clutter. The locations categorised are multipurpose venues, hosting a wide range of activities. In contrast Football stadiums mainly host football; and theatres mainly host drama, though both are perioducally used for other purposes. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per others. None of these are venues specifically built for pro wrestling, and therefore their pro wrestling use is not defining. Except for maybe the ECW Arena, but then it'd be a category of one. oknazevad ( talk) 04:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Shia Muslim scholars of Islam to Category:Scholars of Shia Islam
- Nominator's rationale: The category shouldn't be about the religious background of the scholar, but about the object of the studies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Their field of study is the important thing. In practice, almost all those in the target will be Shia Muslims, but that is by the way. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The target is totally different than the present category. We have Category:Muslim scholars of Islam of which this is a reasonable sub-category. As long as the parent category exists, this one should. The scholars here are not neccesarily specifically studying Shia Islam, they are studying Islam in a way informed by their being Shia. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that the target is different. It should be different though, there is no reason why atheist or Christian scholars of Shia Islam shouldn't be categorized together with Shia Muslims. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question to @ Marcocapelle: You could simply create a parent category, but are there any atheist or Christian scholars of Islam who are, in a defining way, specialists on Shia Islam? – Fayenatic L ondon 09:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's a fair point, definitely. I must admit I was just irritated by the fact that the category structure - as is - just simply seems to assume that all scholars of Shia Islam are Shia Muslims. I don't have any concrete evidence that in practice this is a false assumption though. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Over to you with this one, thanks, R'n'B. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name " Washington" is ambiguous, and other categories relating to the U.S. state have the parenthetical; for example Category:Wikipedians in Washington (state) and Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington (state). R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Question to
R'n'B: it seems a reasonable rationale, but implementation would be fiddly. I looked at some pages, and only a minority use {{WikiProject United States|WA=Yes|needs-photo=yes}} for which the template could probably be re-coded. 5 out of 6 were populated using {{Image requested|in=Washington}}, and those pages would need to be manually edited, perhaps using
WP:AWB. Would you be willing to do the work? –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
09:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, not a problem. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 10:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale:, the two categories seem to have an identical purpose, many articles are in both categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – metropolitan is the equivalent of archbishop, subcat of Category:Metropolitan bishops. The second one should be renamed per Category:Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church (or all should be renamed per Mar Thoma Syrian Church). Oculi ( talk) 09:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- If the nominated category will be kept, support rename to Category:Metropolitans of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church per main article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment in order to have a better overview I've reclassified all articles to be in either one of the categories, not in both. This results in 11 metropolitans and 2 bishops. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No logic to this list. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard| — 08:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Purge and keep, some people seem not to belong in this category, but in general I can't see a reason to delete the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)- IN principle keep and purge if necessary. HOwever do we really need a category for members of a street gang, even if it is a large one? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like we do, it is a child of Category:Gangs in Chicago, Illinois. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that we group together articles about gangs, does not mean we should also group together articles about people based on being part of a gang, especially since at times membership by a specific person in a specific gang can be disputed. There is also the question of the wisdom in tagging biographies of living people as members of specific gangs, when the person in question may be 40, and have been part of the gang for 6 months when they were 16. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I took a second look and I agree with JPL in the sense that it doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic and so I've struck my previous vote. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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 to Category:Indian bishops. The current contents are still already in that category, so I will implement this as a deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: None of the bishops in this category has the title Bishop of India. Nothing is lost by deleting this category because all of these bishops are already in the tree of Category:Indian bishops. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- in principle, merge to Category:Indian bishops. -- This may be the same as delete, in practice. The 3 subcats are already in the target; I have not checked the individuals. However, Might it not be better to merge both to Category:Bishops in India: most early Anglican biships will have eben English, not Indian. What is important is the see, not the nationality. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, but in practise it does not matter that much, because English-born bishops with a see in India are also in Category:Indian bishops. Let's first finish this merge before starting something else. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.