- 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category was created by a new user, who seems to be using Wikipedia as a family tree history creator. Most of the articles in this category are at AfD, and those that aren't are notable for things other than being in this family. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- We have not allowed categories for descendants of Queen Victoria and certainly should not for some NN emigrant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for same reason as listed in the other family tree category below. - O.R. Comms 18:46, 2 March 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category was created by a new user, who seems to be using Wikipedia as a family tree history creator. Most of the articles in this category are at AfD, and those that aren't are notable for things other than being in this family. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- We have not allowed categories for descendants of Queen Victoria and certainly should not for some NN emigrant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:BITE applies, but did they really think they would get away with doing this on Wikipedia? -18:44, 2 March 2016 (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: Upmerge. As the comments below indicate, "church-state separation" is a real concept in U.S. law, so there is no problem with the name of the category being nominated. However, the comments also indicate that not everything in this category is case law precisely, that not everything here falls under the Establishment Clause, and that this category may be slicing things too fine to be helpful to navigation. It was pointed out that Category:Church and state law in the United States covers everything in the nominated category, and merging this category to that one seems like the only sensible resolution that deals with all of the problems people have pointed out. -- Beland ( talk) 16:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- For the purpose of making sure all the case law articles and subcategories that were here are listed under Category:United States case law by topic, I'm filing anything that isn't already under a more-specific case law category. -- Beland ( talk) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: the United States never had a state church, so didn't and doesn't need any church-state separation. The category is mostly (but not wholly) about case law concerning freedom of religion. The proposed category name is a parallel of Category:United States legislation concerning religion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The constitutional prohibition against a state church hardly prevents litigation meant to enforce that prohibition. Cases regarding tax dollars going to support specific religious institutions or expressions are much more about keeping church and state separate than they are about any individual's right to practice their religion irrespective of the involvement of state dollars. bd2412 T 23:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)- Separation of church and state is properly handled by Category:Establishment Clause case law. As currently named, the category is an inappropriate parent for Category:Ministerial exception case law and Category:United States creationism and evolution case law, so if the rename does not go through, some reparenting will be in order.- choster ( talk) 01:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer -- Category:United States case law on church-state separation. If (as I suspect) that it what Category:Establishment Clause case law is about, it should be merged in. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is a misunderstanding, because Category:United States church-state separation case law contains child Category:Establishment Clause case law plus single articles that are not about church-state separation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that they ought to be merged per Peterkingiron. The separation of church and state is vague at best and seems to duplicate Establishment Clause case law. Some cases, I gather, focus on both Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, so they go into both categories, not some amalgamation for them alone. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Do we need something other than the Category:Church and state law in the United States parent category. Many of the items that don't fit into one of the existing First Amendment case law subcats aren't case law/court cases/litigation/lawsuits. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would assume that Category:Church and state law in the United States is about church-state separation legislation while the child categorie(s) contain case law about the same legal subject. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The category contains non-case law articles ( Public menorah, Daniel Freeman, Mount Soledad cross controversy and, through a redirect, Angus M. Cannon) and without exception every case law article that is present is already in a more specific First Amendment case law category. If someone wants to try and salvage this or make it a container category, I'm willing to reconsider, but the current category does not aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Containerize per RevelationDirect, as a child category of Category:United States case law by topic, while also maintaining the rename nomination. This issue is probably also what User:Choster and User:BD2412 discussed earlier, but if they did I missed the pointe of that discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:05, 28 February 2016 (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) 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; with the exception of the Fatimids, all caliphates were Sunni. Constantine ✍ 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 3 March 2016 (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) 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-item category; the Fatimids were the only Shia dynasty to claim the caliphal title Constantine ✍ 19:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 3 March 2016 (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) 01:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (which is in plenty of categories for more defining characteristics) and has no parents. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Zee, I just don't see why the National Palace Museum category doesn't already cover this sufficiently. There are very few articles in the parent category. Also, you've had almost a month to fill this cat with new articles. Maybe this is too soon? Curro2 ( talk) 02:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:National Palace Museum, which appears to have two persons in it already. For universities, we have faculty categories, but I doubt we will get enough content to need to split out curators from museums: I am not sure precisely what his status was. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support delete, the one person in the category has apparently been a member of the board of directors, doesn't seem very defining given the lack of further information in the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:11, 27 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly vague, undefined, and non-neutral. Similar categories have been deleted before. At the time of nomination, the category contained only one article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was expecting a category about philosophers, but the only article included is Choe Sihyeong. He was a Korean revolutionary leader, not exactly known for his theoretical concepts. Dimadick ( talk) 09:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- The one article has plenty of categories, so it will not be orphaned. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete subjective at best. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:17, 26 February 2016 (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/merge. In this case delete and merge is identical because the article is already in the merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: While I can see that this might at some time be open to expansion, we currently only have one metal band from Tunisia with a Wikipedia article... and it isn't a heavy metal band, it's prog metal (as its article confirms). Either this category should be renamed to reflect the fact (in which case it would still be woefully underpopulated, or the article on Myrath should be upmerged into relevant parent categories. No objection to re-creation if and when more articles exist. Grutness... wha? 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Tunisian musical groups. It is currently underpopulated and there is no need for subcategories. Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per Dimadick. There may be a need to distinguish modern music from traditional, but the target is not beg enough to need splitting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:56, 25 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category was created by a new user, who seems to be using Wikipedia as a family tree history creator. Most of the articles in this category are at AfD, and those that aren't are notable for things other than being in this family. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- We have not allowed categories for descendants of Queen Victoria and certainly should not for some NN emigrant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for same reason as listed in the other family tree category below. - O.R. Comms 18:46, 2 March 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category was created by a new user, who seems to be using Wikipedia as a family tree history creator. Most of the articles in this category are at AfD, and those that aren't are notable for things other than being in this family. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- We have not allowed categories for descendants of Queen Victoria and certainly should not for some NN emigrant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:BITE applies, but did they really think they would get away with doing this on Wikipedia? -18:44, 2 March 2016 (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: Upmerge. As the comments below indicate, "church-state separation" is a real concept in U.S. law, so there is no problem with the name of the category being nominated. However, the comments also indicate that not everything in this category is case law precisely, that not everything here falls under the Establishment Clause, and that this category may be slicing things too fine to be helpful to navigation. It was pointed out that Category:Church and state law in the United States covers everything in the nominated category, and merging this category to that one seems like the only sensible resolution that deals with all of the problems people have pointed out. -- Beland ( talk) 16:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- For the purpose of making sure all the case law articles and subcategories that were here are listed under Category:United States case law by topic, I'm filing anything that isn't already under a more-specific case law category. -- Beland ( talk) 16:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: the United States never had a state church, so didn't and doesn't need any church-state separation. The category is mostly (but not wholly) about case law concerning freedom of religion. The proposed category name is a parallel of Category:United States legislation concerning religion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The constitutional prohibition against a state church hardly prevents litigation meant to enforce that prohibition. Cases regarding tax dollars going to support specific religious institutions or expressions are much more about keeping church and state separate than they are about any individual's right to practice their religion irrespective of the involvement of state dollars. bd2412 T 23:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)- Separation of church and state is properly handled by Category:Establishment Clause case law. As currently named, the category is an inappropriate parent for Category:Ministerial exception case law and Category:United States creationism and evolution case law, so if the rename does not go through, some reparenting will be in order.- choster ( talk) 01:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer -- Category:United States case law on church-state separation. If (as I suspect) that it what Category:Establishment Clause case law is about, it should be merged in. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is a misunderstanding, because Category:United States church-state separation case law contains child Category:Establishment Clause case law plus single articles that are not about church-state separation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that they ought to be merged per Peterkingiron. The separation of church and state is vague at best and seems to duplicate Establishment Clause case law. Some cases, I gather, focus on both Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, so they go into both categories, not some amalgamation for them alone. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Do we need something other than the Category:Church and state law in the United States parent category. Many of the items that don't fit into one of the existing First Amendment case law subcats aren't case law/court cases/litigation/lawsuits. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would assume that Category:Church and state law in the United States is about church-state separation legislation while the child categorie(s) contain case law about the same legal subject. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The category contains non-case law articles ( Public menorah, Daniel Freeman, Mount Soledad cross controversy and, through a redirect, Angus M. Cannon) and without exception every case law article that is present is already in a more specific First Amendment case law category. If someone wants to try and salvage this or make it a container category, I'm willing to reconsider, but the current category does not aid navigation. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Containerize per RevelationDirect, as a child category of Category:United States case law by topic, while also maintaining the rename nomination. This issue is probably also what User:Choster and User:BD2412 discussed earlier, but if they did I missed the pointe of that discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:05, 28 February 2016 (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) 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Redundant category; with the exception of the Fatimids, all caliphates were Sunni. Constantine ✍ 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 3 March 2016 (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) 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Single-item category; the Fatimids were the only Shia dynasty to claim the caliphal title Constantine ✍ 19:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:33, 3 March 2016 (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) 01:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (which is in plenty of categories for more defining characteristics) and has no parents. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Zee, I just don't see why the National Palace Museum category doesn't already cover this sufficiently. There are very few articles in the parent category. Also, you've had almost a month to fill this cat with new articles. Maybe this is too soon? Curro2 ( talk) 02:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:National Palace Museum, which appears to have two persons in it already. For universities, we have faculty categories, but I doubt we will get enough content to need to split out curators from museums: I am not sure precisely what his status was. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support delete, the one person in the category has apparently been a member of the board of directors, doesn't seem very defining given the lack of further information in the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:11, 27 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Hopelessly vague, undefined, and non-neutral. Similar categories have been deleted before. At the time of nomination, the category contained only one article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was expecting a category about philosophers, but the only article included is Choe Sihyeong. He was a Korean revolutionary leader, not exactly known for his theoretical concepts. Dimadick ( talk) 09:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- The one article has plenty of categories, so it will not be orphaned. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete subjective at best. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:17, 26 February 2016 (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/merge. In this case delete and merge is identical because the article is already in the merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: While I can see that this might at some time be open to expansion, we currently only have one metal band from Tunisia with a Wikipedia article... and it isn't a heavy metal band, it's prog metal (as its article confirms). Either this category should be renamed to reflect the fact (in which case it would still be woefully underpopulated, or the article on Myrath should be upmerged into relevant parent categories. No objection to re-creation if and when more articles exist. Grutness... wha? 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Tunisian musical groups. It is currently underpopulated and there is no need for subcategories. Dimadick ( talk) 09:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per Dimadick. There may be a need to distinguish modern music from traditional, but the target is not beg enough to need splitting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:56, 25 February 2016 (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.