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: Wrong namespace. There might be some material in the "category" to bring into
Aarakocra, but this is effectively an article in category space.
Plantdrew (
talk)
23:50, 1 March 2016 (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.
Urdu1 series
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:Antiochian Greek Christians
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.
Oppose. There's no reason to think all articles would go in only one of the subcategories. The Melkite category is anachronistic before 1724 and the Orthodox category is anachronistic before the Great Schism, so there's a thousand years of history that for NPOV reasons probably can't be split between the two subcategories.--
Jahaza (
talk)
18:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Article
Antiochian Greek Christians explicitly says that Antiochian Greek Christians "are either members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or the Melkite Greek Catholic Church". If that definition is incorrect, then what are the inclusion criteria for the category?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Maybe, but that contradicts with
User:Jahaza's remark that ancient Christians who lived before the Arabs conquered the region should also have a place in this category; they were Greek- or Aramean-speaking.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep but tag as container only. All we have is a main article, two sub-cats, and one other article (Rum), which may well not belong. In the Middle East, Christian denominations are so entrenched that they operate as quasi-ethnicities. The reference to Antioch is that the patriarch there is the head of this branch of the Orthodox church.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The main article,
Antiochian Greek Christians, really needs to be improved to clarify this grouping. Do members have to speak Arabic? Can they move outside the Levant and still have descendents be included? The current inclusion criteria are not clear.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. There are religious bodies whose members clearly fit this definition. There actually are people who are not ethnically connected to the middle east that fit under this definition. It means membership in the religious bodies involved, and while most of their members in Australia, the United States, Canada etc have some if not all Middle Eastern ancestry, they also include some non-0Middle Eastern converts.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment To be honest, I think this article is based largely on original research or at least a recent revisionist ideology regarding Greek Orthodox and Catholic Christians, which implies that they're an ethnoreligious group rather than just a religious group/sect. This grouping supposedly includes the Arabic-speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Catholic (Melkite) Church, but excludes the Arabic-speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. I would think that Orthodox Christians in Damascus (who belong to the Antioch patriarchate) consider themselves closer to Orthodox Christians in Nazareth (who belong to the Jerusalem patriarchate) than with Greek Catholics in
Zahle, Lebanon. In all my research about this region, the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox were somewhat rival denominations, with the former having split from the latter. Both of their patriarchs are based in Antioch, but they're two totally separate patriarchates. The article needs to be clarified and more importantly, it needs to be verified that this is not based on original research. Surely, if Antiochian Greek Christians are an ethnoreligious group defined as such, there would be plenty of material about them in scholarly sources. Until this article could be clarified/verified, it doesn't make sense to have a discussion about proper categorization, unless it would involve deletion. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
21:08, 12 April 2016 (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.
UTV (TV channel)
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: UTV Media's TV assets were sold to ITV plc and has now been renamed Wireless Group, which consists of the company's remaining radio assets. The existing UTV Media category consists of mainly articles relating to the TV channel.
Bbb2007 (
talk)
20:52, 1 March 2016 (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:Monarch's Way
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.
Delete I would be open to this category if it consisted of different sections/bridges/features of the actual footpath. But listing where it goes through is best handled in the article.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per precedent. If correctly titled it would be "Places on Monarch's Way", which is in the nature of a Performance category, something we do not allow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:56, 5 March 2016 (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:Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail
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.
Strong Oppose - The
Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail article is the defining article, it does exist (It had been created as Golden Pipeline project, but was basically about the heritage trail in the first place), the other point (reference to in the related articles) this has been corrected
JarrahTree23:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I have no idea your actual knowledge of western australian geography or history or the original pipeline or the trail, but it was the destination - and it is very defining, it is where the pipeline and trail are going from here in Perth... Kalgoorlie would not have existed if it hadnt been for the pipeline, and the national trust created the trail to celebrate the 100 years of kalgoorlie being sustained by it
JarrahTree00:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep the defining features of the pipeline itself and the policy behind keeping the article are well-described by JarrahTree and Mitch Ames above.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
00:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply to Dex Dor - the pipeline, and the railway were the causes for most of the settlements to exist on the way to Kalgoorlie, they are part of the system that sustained the pipeline and the power stations and railway that serviced them. The trail is a celebration of that contribution or synergy between the different systems, and they are inherently part of the trail and the trail is a celebration of how the communities were railway, pipeline and Kalgoorlie related places.
Reply to Revelation Direct - the goldfields water supply scheme and the golden pipeline heritage trail are separate for good reason, the great eastern highway and signage came long after the earlier systems, the railway/pipeline/pump stations sytem to get the water to kalgoorlie is kept separate on the basis that the scheme and its components is ultimately much more complex than the current article or category shows and is very explandable given the right contributions over time, the heritage trail is separate in that it is focused on a specific way of looking at the cultural landscape, rather than the details that are possible in the other category.
JarrahTree10:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete while I wouldn't have an objection against the category as such, it should at least be populated with articles about the trail (e.g. a list of people who walked the trail, an article about movies depicting the trail etc.). Currently it's just filled with articles about cities (and one dam).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - I've changed my mind about this. While I still think the pipeline and the
Goldfields Water Supply Scheme are significant, and the
Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail notable enough for an article, I believe
Peter James and
DexDor are correct - being on the Trail is not a defining characteristic of the towns (most of the category's contents), which is the
primary criteria for categorization. (Adding "It is located on the route of the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme, and as a result is also on the Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail" to the lead section does not make it a defining charactertic.)
JarrahTree is of course invited to provide the
reliable sources that commonly and consistently define the towns as being on the Trail.
Even
Mundaring Weir is not defined by being on the Trail; it is defined by being the beginning of the pipeline.
Delete per precedent. If correctly titled it would be "Places on Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail", which is in the nature of a Performance category, something we do not allow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:57, 5 March 2016 (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:Toseiha
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 category contains just one article (that is in several other categories) and has no parent categories. DexDor(talk)20:37, 1 March 2016 (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:1747 establishments in Pakistan
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. Let me just change up
Durrani Empire to remove all the Pakistan/Afghanistan nonsense to Asia and db-author the categories. I think at that time I was using current locations not those that existed then. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
20:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - My initial reaction was that the article should be in a category for India in 18th century, but perhaps that is not appropriate, since India at that period presumably refers to the Mughal Empire.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Mughal Empire along with British, French and Portuguese India plus everything else that happened in all the little kingdoms and the like. I still wonder if we should have separate categories for current places and old ones but there's no support for that. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
19:44, 5 March 2016 (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:Indian businesspeople from Kerala
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:Indian businesspeople from Andhra Pradesh
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:Songs about aircraft
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.
Delete as per all the reasons stated by
Carlossuarez46. I note that one of the entries in the category is an instrumental, how is that about "aviation" or "aircraft?" Categories are supposed to be defining, but "songs about" relegates defining to mere mention without reference in the article, confirmation by third party and ignoring use of metaphor, allegory, parable and every other linguistic trick used. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Rename The topic seems notable, the scope should be expanded. The category could use some clean-up to assure that these articles are on topic.
Dimadick (
talk)
19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, I suppose it only makes sense to delete the category if it would be the start of cutting the entire
Category:Songs by theme tree. While I'd be neutral towards the latter, I don't think we should delete the nominated category just on its own.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle:. There is plenty of precedent to deleting individual theme categories :-
If just one category gets nominated, we should get clear why this category should be deleted in contrast to its siblings. But many of the delete arguments in previous discussions are general arguments that apply to any song theme. So then just nominate the entire tree. With the above history I would support the nomination per precedent.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with Marcocapelle. Most if not all of the deletions in that list were based on arguments relating to the subject of the specific category. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, this discussion should be closed in conjunction with the larger discussion about the whole category tree of Songs by theme, to be found
here.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Since consensus in the other discussion is growing that every song theme category should be nominated separately, this nomination can be closed independently of the other after all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:00, 21 March 2016 (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.
Versus (TV channel)
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 -- It can produce slightly odd results, but this applies the principle we use for alumni categories for merged or renamed institutions.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:09, 1 March 2016 (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: Wrong namespace. There might be some material in the "category" to bring into
Aarakocra, but this is effectively an article in category space.
Plantdrew (
talk)
23:50, 1 March 2016 (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.
Urdu1 series
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:Antiochian Greek Christians
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.
Oppose. There's no reason to think all articles would go in only one of the subcategories. The Melkite category is anachronistic before 1724 and the Orthodox category is anachronistic before the Great Schism, so there's a thousand years of history that for NPOV reasons probably can't be split between the two subcategories.--
Jahaza (
talk)
18:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Article
Antiochian Greek Christians explicitly says that Antiochian Greek Christians "are either members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or the Melkite Greek Catholic Church". If that definition is incorrect, then what are the inclusion criteria for the category?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Maybe, but that contradicts with
User:Jahaza's remark that ancient Christians who lived before the Arabs conquered the region should also have a place in this category; they were Greek- or Aramean-speaking.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep but tag as container only. All we have is a main article, two sub-cats, and one other article (Rum), which may well not belong. In the Middle East, Christian denominations are so entrenched that they operate as quasi-ethnicities. The reference to Antioch is that the patriarch there is the head of this branch of the Orthodox church.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The main article,
Antiochian Greek Christians, really needs to be improved to clarify this grouping. Do members have to speak Arabic? Can they move outside the Levant and still have descendents be included? The current inclusion criteria are not clear.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
22:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. There are religious bodies whose members clearly fit this definition. There actually are people who are not ethnically connected to the middle east that fit under this definition. It means membership in the religious bodies involved, and while most of their members in Australia, the United States, Canada etc have some if not all Middle Eastern ancestry, they also include some non-0Middle Eastern converts.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment To be honest, I think this article is based largely on original research or at least a recent revisionist ideology regarding Greek Orthodox and Catholic Christians, which implies that they're an ethnoreligious group rather than just a religious group/sect. This grouping supposedly includes the Arabic-speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Catholic (Melkite) Church, but excludes the Arabic-speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. I would think that Orthodox Christians in Damascus (who belong to the Antioch patriarchate) consider themselves closer to Orthodox Christians in Nazareth (who belong to the Jerusalem patriarchate) than with Greek Catholics in
Zahle, Lebanon. In all my research about this region, the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox were somewhat rival denominations, with the former having split from the latter. Both of their patriarchs are based in Antioch, but they're two totally separate patriarchates. The article needs to be clarified and more importantly, it needs to be verified that this is not based on original research. Surely, if Antiochian Greek Christians are an ethnoreligious group defined as such, there would be plenty of material about them in scholarly sources. Until this article could be clarified/verified, it doesn't make sense to have a discussion about proper categorization, unless it would involve deletion. --
Al Ameer (
talk)
21:08, 12 April 2016 (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.
UTV (TV channel)
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: UTV Media's TV assets were sold to ITV plc and has now been renamed Wireless Group, which consists of the company's remaining radio assets. The existing UTV Media category consists of mainly articles relating to the TV channel.
Bbb2007 (
talk)
20:52, 1 March 2016 (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:Monarch's Way
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.
Delete I would be open to this category if it consisted of different sections/bridges/features of the actual footpath. But listing where it goes through is best handled in the article.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per precedent. If correctly titled it would be "Places on Monarch's Way", which is in the nature of a Performance category, something we do not allow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:56, 5 March 2016 (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:Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail
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.
Strong Oppose - The
Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail article is the defining article, it does exist (It had been created as Golden Pipeline project, but was basically about the heritage trail in the first place), the other point (reference to in the related articles) this has been corrected
JarrahTree23:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I have no idea your actual knowledge of western australian geography or history or the original pipeline or the trail, but it was the destination - and it is very defining, it is where the pipeline and trail are going from here in Perth... Kalgoorlie would not have existed if it hadnt been for the pipeline, and the national trust created the trail to celebrate the 100 years of kalgoorlie being sustained by it
JarrahTree00:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep the defining features of the pipeline itself and the policy behind keeping the article are well-described by JarrahTree and Mitch Ames above.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
00:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply to Dex Dor - the pipeline, and the railway were the causes for most of the settlements to exist on the way to Kalgoorlie, they are part of the system that sustained the pipeline and the power stations and railway that serviced them. The trail is a celebration of that contribution or synergy between the different systems, and they are inherently part of the trail and the trail is a celebration of how the communities were railway, pipeline and Kalgoorlie related places.
Reply to Revelation Direct - the goldfields water supply scheme and the golden pipeline heritage trail are separate for good reason, the great eastern highway and signage came long after the earlier systems, the railway/pipeline/pump stations sytem to get the water to kalgoorlie is kept separate on the basis that the scheme and its components is ultimately much more complex than the current article or category shows and is very explandable given the right contributions over time, the heritage trail is separate in that it is focused on a specific way of looking at the cultural landscape, rather than the details that are possible in the other category.
JarrahTree10:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete while I wouldn't have an objection against the category as such, it should at least be populated with articles about the trail (e.g. a list of people who walked the trail, an article about movies depicting the trail etc.). Currently it's just filled with articles about cities (and one dam).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - I've changed my mind about this. While I still think the pipeline and the
Goldfields Water Supply Scheme are significant, and the
Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail notable enough for an article, I believe
Peter James and
DexDor are correct - being on the Trail is not a defining characteristic of the towns (most of the category's contents), which is the
primary criteria for categorization. (Adding "It is located on the route of the Goldfields Water Supply Scheme, and as a result is also on the Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail" to the lead section does not make it a defining charactertic.)
JarrahTree is of course invited to provide the
reliable sources that commonly and consistently define the towns as being on the Trail.
Even
Mundaring Weir is not defined by being on the Trail; it is defined by being the beginning of the pipeline.
Delete per precedent. If correctly titled it would be "Places on Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail", which is in the nature of a Performance category, something we do not allow.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:57, 5 March 2016 (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:Toseiha
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 category contains just one article (that is in several other categories) and has no parent categories. DexDor(talk)20:37, 1 March 2016 (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:1747 establishments in Pakistan
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. Let me just change up
Durrani Empire to remove all the Pakistan/Afghanistan nonsense to Asia and db-author the categories. I think at that time I was using current locations not those that existed then. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
20:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - My initial reaction was that the article should be in a category for India in 18th century, but perhaps that is not appropriate, since India at that period presumably refers to the Mughal Empire.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Mughal Empire along with British, French and Portuguese India plus everything else that happened in all the little kingdoms and the like. I still wonder if we should have separate categories for current places and old ones but there's no support for that. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
19:44, 5 March 2016 (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:Indian businesspeople from Kerala
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:Indian businesspeople from Andhra Pradesh
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:Songs about aircraft
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.
Delete as per all the reasons stated by
Carlossuarez46. I note that one of the entries in the category is an instrumental, how is that about "aviation" or "aircraft?" Categories are supposed to be defining, but "songs about" relegates defining to mere mention without reference in the article, confirmation by third party and ignoring use of metaphor, allegory, parable and every other linguistic trick used. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Rename The topic seems notable, the scope should be expanded. The category could use some clean-up to assure that these articles are on topic.
Dimadick (
talk)
19:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, I suppose it only makes sense to delete the category if it would be the start of cutting the entire
Category:Songs by theme tree. While I'd be neutral towards the latter, I don't think we should delete the nominated category just on its own.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle:. There is plenty of precedent to deleting individual theme categories :-
If just one category gets nominated, we should get clear why this category should be deleted in contrast to its siblings. But many of the delete arguments in previous discussions are general arguments that apply to any song theme. So then just nominate the entire tree. With the above history I would support the nomination per precedent.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with Marcocapelle. Most if not all of the deletions in that list were based on arguments relating to the subject of the specific category. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
14:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, this discussion should be closed in conjunction with the larger discussion about the whole category tree of Songs by theme, to be found
here.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Since consensus in the other discussion is growing that every song theme category should be nominated separately, this nomination can be closed independently of the other after all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:00, 21 March 2016 (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.
Versus (TV channel)
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 -- It can produce slightly odd results, but this applies the principle we use for alumni categories for merged or renamed institutions.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:09, 1 March 2016 (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.