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 per
WP:NONDEF. While technically these articles are indeed about persons who lived in the Elbe-Weser Triangle or about places in the Elbe-Weser triangle, most articles aren't referring to the Elbe-Weser Triangle at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:55, 1 October 2015 (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:People in English history
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 The first of these might be useful as a container category and the second might be merged into it. However neither should contain articles: they need to be moved elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:19, 4 October 2015 (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:Ships at the Japanese Instrument of Surrender
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 seems
WP:NONDEFINING. There were
a lot of ships present for the ceremony. (And by the way, the Instrument is a document, so these are really ships at the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.)
BDD (
talk)
18:50, 1 October 2015 (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.
Duchy of Brunswick
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.
Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery!
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
08:00, 3 October 2015 (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:Albanian Essayists
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.
Category:Pope Francis albums
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.
Speedy keep Per
WP:SMALLCAT and the extensive precedent of keeping album categories per artist, no matter how many he releases. This is a long-standing scheme of about 18,000 members and there is no reason why this is somehow unique. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯02:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom; he is not an artist, and I personally doubt he has had any significant role in the album's production or release. —
烏Γ(
kaw),
08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Small category or no, the category fits the categorization scheme of having a corresponding category for each album's creator or creators.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Alternate Upmerge all the way to
Category:Pope Francis using 烏Γ's analysis. The only article,
Wake Up! (Pope Francis album), is not by the Pope in any traditional sense. It is his speeches set to music, similar to rap songs that use clips from other works and transform the original work. There's nothing in the article to suggest the Pope had any involvement or that the Vatican sanctioned the album.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:19, 4 October 2015 (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:Professorial degrees
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: There are multiple problems with this cat. Professor is an academic rank, not a degree. No clue where the (unsourced) claim that it "extremely rarely" has been used as a degree comes from, but even if true, if something is this rare, it should perhaps be mentioned briefly in
professor (if it can be sourced), but does not justify naming a whole category "degrees" whereas the rest of the world thinks of this as ranks. (Note: a degree is something like a diploma -PhD, MSc, MD, etc- and once you have it you keep it even if you start doing something completely different. "Professor" is a job title and if you switch careers, you lose the right to use it). Second, there are not all that many ranks that fall into this cat and, per
WP:SMALLCAT, I don't see why we need a special cat "Professorial degrees" or "professorial ranks" if we have the completely appropriate "Academic ranks" for that.
Randykitty (
talk)
07:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
There are certainly problems with this category but the article
Professorial degree seems to show that it exists. However, everything else in this category should not be there. So the discussion should be about whether there are articles on people who have a Professorial degree. If there are, these articles should be in this category. If there are none or only one or two, the category should be deleted. --
Bduke(Discussion)09:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I had a look at
Professorial degree. I don't know about Poland, but I am rather sure that this does not apply to Germany. Habit in Germany is that a person who used to be a professor still uses that title after they retire, for example, but I don't know of any cases where somebody got the title "professor" without at the same time also getting the equivalent position. It looks like hardly any article links to
Professorial degree (most links seem to come from its inclusion in the {{Academic degrees}} template. --
Randykitty (
talk)
11:04, 1 October 2015 (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:K-LOVE radio stations
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.
Category:Hurricanes in Desirade
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.
Category:Presidents of the United States who were Freemasons
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 realize that this is super important information to certain people, among them various types of conspiracy theorists, but I'm not sure if it's something that we should be categorizing the presidents by: I don't think that being a Freemason is a particularly defining characteristic for these presidents.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename: I would oppose an upmerge... I would argue that even the broader category of
Category:American Freemasons is an intersection of non-defining, unrelated characteristics (how is being both an American and a Freemason defining).
In any case, when we created this category, the intent was not to have a sub-categorization of Presidents... The intent was to have a sub-categorization of Freemasons. For a member of the Freemasons, becoming President of the US is defining (as it would be for a member of any other group or organization). To make the link clearer, perhaps we should switch the terms around... and do a rename to
Category:Freemasons who were President of the United States? (this could be matched by similar sub-cats under the broader banner of cat:Freemasons... "Freemasons who were King of England"... Freemasons who were Scientists"... Freemasons who were XYZ, etc. ).
Blueboar (
talk)
13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep You said it right in the nomination; this is important information to some people. Not just conspiracy theorists—Masons themselves, and anyone doing more serious research on, for example, Freemason imagery in American civic life. It does seem like a fairly narrow intersection, though, and presidents are chock-full of categories anyway. I recently compiled the
List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves, but I wouldn't make a category from that either (though that one, one hopes, would never get any larger). --
BDD (
talk)
19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Listify Even though I fully agree with
Blueboar′s line of reasoning, I think that a list will be much more handy, as it can contain dates (which is impossible for a category) and also make reference to the case of LBJ.--
The Traditionalist (
talk)
15:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete/Listify. A list can deal with complications (e.g. someone who was a US president and was a freemason, but not at the same time). The American Freemasons category is not so large (and many of the articles in it could probably be removed per text at
Category:Freemasons) that it needs subdividing (and if it was to be subdivided by occupation then it would be better to have a politicians subcat). DexDor(talk)04:53, 9 October 2015 (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 per
WP:NONDEF. While technically these articles are indeed about persons who lived in the Elbe-Weser Triangle or about places in the Elbe-Weser triangle, most articles aren't referring to the Elbe-Weser Triangle at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:55, 1 October 2015 (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:People in English history
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 The first of these might be useful as a container category and the second might be merged into it. However neither should contain articles: they need to be moved elsewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:19, 4 October 2015 (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:Ships at the Japanese Instrument of Surrender
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 seems
WP:NONDEFINING. There were
a lot of ships present for the ceremony. (And by the way, the Instrument is a document, so these are really ships at the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.)
BDD (
talk)
18:50, 1 October 2015 (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.
Duchy of Brunswick
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.
Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery!
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
08:00, 3 October 2015 (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:Albanian Essayists
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.
Category:Pope Francis albums
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.
Speedy keep Per
WP:SMALLCAT and the extensive precedent of keeping album categories per artist, no matter how many he releases. This is a long-standing scheme of about 18,000 members and there is no reason why this is somehow unique. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯02:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom; he is not an artist, and I personally doubt he has had any significant role in the album's production or release. —
烏Γ(
kaw),
08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Small category or no, the category fits the categorization scheme of having a corresponding category for each album's creator or creators.
Dimadick (
talk)
20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Alternate Upmerge all the way to
Category:Pope Francis using 烏Γ's analysis. The only article,
Wake Up! (Pope Francis album), is not by the Pope in any traditional sense. It is his speeches set to music, similar to rap songs that use clips from other works and transform the original work. There's nothing in the article to suggest the Pope had any involvement or that the Vatican sanctioned the album.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
10:19, 4 October 2015 (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:Professorial degrees
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: There are multiple problems with this cat. Professor is an academic rank, not a degree. No clue where the (unsourced) claim that it "extremely rarely" has been used as a degree comes from, but even if true, if something is this rare, it should perhaps be mentioned briefly in
professor (if it can be sourced), but does not justify naming a whole category "degrees" whereas the rest of the world thinks of this as ranks. (Note: a degree is something like a diploma -PhD, MSc, MD, etc- and once you have it you keep it even if you start doing something completely different. "Professor" is a job title and if you switch careers, you lose the right to use it). Second, there are not all that many ranks that fall into this cat and, per
WP:SMALLCAT, I don't see why we need a special cat "Professorial degrees" or "professorial ranks" if we have the completely appropriate "Academic ranks" for that.
Randykitty (
talk)
07:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
There are certainly problems with this category but the article
Professorial degree seems to show that it exists. However, everything else in this category should not be there. So the discussion should be about whether there are articles on people who have a Professorial degree. If there are, these articles should be in this category. If there are none or only one or two, the category should be deleted. --
Bduke(Discussion)09:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I had a look at
Professorial degree. I don't know about Poland, but I am rather sure that this does not apply to Germany. Habit in Germany is that a person who used to be a professor still uses that title after they retire, for example, but I don't know of any cases where somebody got the title "professor" without at the same time also getting the equivalent position. It looks like hardly any article links to
Professorial degree (most links seem to come from its inclusion in the {{Academic degrees}} template. --
Randykitty (
talk)
11:04, 1 October 2015 (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:K-LOVE radio stations
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.
Category:Hurricanes in Desirade
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.
Category:Presidents of the United States who were Freemasons
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 realize that this is super important information to certain people, among them various types of conspiracy theorists, but I'm not sure if it's something that we should be categorizing the presidents by: I don't think that being a Freemason is a particularly defining characteristic for these presidents.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep but rename: I would oppose an upmerge... I would argue that even the broader category of
Category:American Freemasons is an intersection of non-defining, unrelated characteristics (how is being both an American and a Freemason defining).
In any case, when we created this category, the intent was not to have a sub-categorization of Presidents... The intent was to have a sub-categorization of Freemasons. For a member of the Freemasons, becoming President of the US is defining (as it would be for a member of any other group or organization). To make the link clearer, perhaps we should switch the terms around... and do a rename to
Category:Freemasons who were President of the United States? (this could be matched by similar sub-cats under the broader banner of cat:Freemasons... "Freemasons who were King of England"... Freemasons who were Scientists"... Freemasons who were XYZ, etc. ).
Blueboar (
talk)
13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep You said it right in the nomination; this is important information to some people. Not just conspiracy theorists—Masons themselves, and anyone doing more serious research on, for example, Freemason imagery in American civic life. It does seem like a fairly narrow intersection, though, and presidents are chock-full of categories anyway. I recently compiled the
List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves, but I wouldn't make a category from that either (though that one, one hopes, would never get any larger). --
BDD (
talk)
19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Listify Even though I fully agree with
Blueboar′s line of reasoning, I think that a list will be much more handy, as it can contain dates (which is impossible for a category) and also make reference to the case of LBJ.--
The Traditionalist (
talk)
15:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete/Listify. A list can deal with complications (e.g. someone who was a US president and was a freemason, but not at the same time). The American Freemasons category is not so large (and many of the articles in it could probably be removed per text at
Category:Freemasons) that it needs subdividing (and if it was to be subdivided by occupation then it would be better to have a politicians subcat). DexDor(talk)04:53, 9 October 2015 (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.