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.
ℯxplicit 04:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is needless classification of redirects. The redirects themselves are possibly useful but there's no scheme of
Category:Elections by number. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all Don't understand the point of this.
Number57 08:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)reply
comment The New Brunswick and Nova Scotia categories contain disambiguation pages, not redirects, due to the preexistence of those provinces before federalization.
Mangoe (
talk) 16:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — as Mangoe correctly points out, those two contain disambiguation pages rather than redirects, because joining Confederation reset the official numbering from the colonial assemblies, so each number can refer to more than one different election depending on whether you start counting from ground or from 1867, and whether you keep counting Nova Scotia's elections straight or shift everything after #20 up one to keep them in phase with the Great Disappearing 21st Assembly snafu of the 1850s — but delete the rest and the parent category as unnecessary.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick disambiguation pages are premised on original research as the Election authorities in both provinces (Elections Nova Scotia and Elections New Brunswick, respectively) number elections from Confederation. There are no sources for the contention that elections are numbered to include colonial elections.
Nixon Now (
talk) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Related discussion - regarding the numbering scheme of the NB and NS elections, you may be interested in
this discussion.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (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:Cultural depictions of Sean Connery
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 holds a TV series because it includes an "interview" with an actor playing Sean Connery and a redirect. There is no plausible use for it. The faux interview TV show,
The God & Devil Show, is a good reason to review all of these "cultural depictions" categories. They seem like magnets for every trivial mention of a notable person or something that resembles a notable person. That show's article lists dozens of faux interviews which could otherwise be used as bases for equally useless categories.
Crewman Capote (
talk) 23:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
ETA: I used the wrong template on the category, renaming instead of deleting. I changed the nomoination here but I don't know how to change it on the category without messing up the link. Sorry.
Delete The current contents are an article about something that has many parodies and cultural depictions (SC among them) and a redirect. No conceptual objection to this type of category but there's no there there, at least yet.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:16, 26 August 2017 (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:Legendary creatures and Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings
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.
"Legendary creature", "Mythical creature" and "Mythical being" are synonymous, but precisely because the cat includes dieties as well, who are no creatures, but creators, the latter is (1) more precise, (2) less offending to theists, which can also prevent edit wars like in 2013
[here].
CN1 (
talk) 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I tend to think of "Legendary creatures" more as creatures from legend, which is often used in vernacular to be similar to fantasy (both genre as well as film). I am not sure if the content here is distracted by the changing use in common language. I have not heard anybody referring to Legendary creatures in a deistic way. --
FULBERT (
talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
@
CreativeName1: How would you envision the two categories being connected? I suppose I am having trouble envisioning the overall taxonomy you are suggesting
FULBERT (
talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)reply
However I'm not sure about the first nomination.
Legendary creature has its own article, while
Mythical being redirects to
Cryptozoology which implies to keep the category name as is, and to remove it as a parent from the second nominated category.
@
Marcocapelle: The redirect is plainly wrong. Proof: (1)
Mythical being = beings from mythology. (2)
Cryptozoology = Study about "hidden" animals. Mythical beings involve also plants and immaterial beings like deities, spirits etc.
CN1 (
talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Of course I realise the redirect is wrong, but for this discussion it's relevant that we don't have an article about Mythical beings.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
There is a rule that states that a category can't have a non-eponymous main article? Because I think
Legendary creatures can still be a good main article, it just would cover only 90 % of it's content instead of the usual 100%.
CN1 (
talk) 07:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not a fixed rule, but it is quite likely that an article
Mythical being does not exist for good reasons, e.g. because
Legendary creatures is considered to be synonymous.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't see how quite likely this is. I find concerns with the name of the article expressed in numerous discussions on the talk page but I never found my proposed name discussed. Chances are higher that nobody thought about it before me. Chances are, nobody of these editors is interested in category questions generally, because I contacted three Wiki-projects and the participation here is not very high. Marco, you say that they are synonymous--is that not a point benefitting the proposal, because it has advantages while meaning the exact same thing?
CN1 (
talk) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Legendary and mythical creatures are synonyms.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:18, 18 August 2017 (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:630s in the Rashidun Caliphate
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:upmerge, this is the only decade category of the Rashidun Caliphate and it only contains a few items.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, it rather looks that in many cases you are misinterpreting the policy of
WP:SMALLCAT as general policy referring to current cat population, whereas it is referring also to the potential of category population. The Rashidun Caliphate is relatively well documented polity with plenty of information available on the decade level and possibly even on the annual level. I will demonstrate it by populating the cat with 10 articles as example that WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here.
GreyShark (
dibra) 11:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Most of these 10 are just copied over from the subcategories, so this is not a very good demonstration and goes against
WP:SUBCAT. Besides all 10 articles are in a battles subcat of
Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate so the amount of articles in the target will remain very modest after merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom -- I have just altered the main article of
Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate to be
Rashidun Caliphate, so that it has an article that exists. This Caliphate existed 632-661 AD, which is not long enough to need to be split by decades.
Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate is also unnecessary and could be profitably merged into
Category:Rashidun Caliphate. The two further decade categories also need upmerging like this nom. Could the closing admin, please create the further merges that I am suggesting to remove those just created by Greyshark. I am not doing this myself as it is better to have one open discussion at a time.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (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:Cancer in cats and dogs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Relevant pages in separate dog and cat categories, combination category not required.
DferDaisy (
talk) 03:22, 15 August 2017 (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:Heteromyidae stubs
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: No longer needed - a
scan shows that there are only 30 stubs for this category.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:11, 15 August 2017 (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:Actors from the New York metropolitan area
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: Who refers to actors as being from this area? I've never seen it.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose I actually think that actors by metropolitan region is better than actors by specific city.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:05, 15 August 2017 (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:About
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.
Alex ShihTalk 04:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is empty, and there is no obvious class of articles that would fill it, or else every article in the project would belong here. This is not how categories work.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:48, 15 August 2017 (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:Kings
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.
Merge - they don't quite mean the same thing, since "Kings" refers only to males; since males is the norm, we don't need a separate category tree for them.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment (not an oppose): there are more monarchs than just kings, so they should be nominated for merge as well:
Category:Emirs,
Category:Emperors,
Category:Sultans. The merge would imply a massive reorganization though, because most content in these categories is also in some other lower level of
Category:Monarchs, so blindly moving over the content would not do.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose: All Kings are monarchs. Not all monarchs are kings. Subcatagories in
Category:Monarchs are about many different topics about all monarchs. Subcategories in
Category:Kings are only about kings. Please tell me you didn't look at that and still wanted to merge them. Or am I missing something?
CN1 (
talk) 11:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose – a king is one type of monarch, an emir is another. I don't see that there is any particular problem with the present arrangement.
Oculi (
talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose A king is a type of monarch, but there are monarchs with higher titles such as emperors.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Monarchs is appropriate as a container for categories for other titles, kings, emperors, sultans, etc. There may be some unique titles that would be directly in Monarchs, such as Nizams of Hyderbad and Nawabs of Bengal.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
General support thinking about it it seems to me that Emirs/Sultans/Kings all tend to be more about shared name than shared office. Even the distinction between kings and emperors is often hard to define clearly. On the other hand, in many contexts princes are functional monarchs, principalities have often been as independent as kings. Right now this whole category tree seems organized by shared name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:43, 27 August 2017 (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:Sarah.t.life's About Page
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.
Alex ShihTalk 04:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both, as per nom. A category essentially intended for a single page is not appropriate. That is not how we do categories, particularly userspace cats.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both - Category creator is a newbie with an apparently irrepressible urge to do things her own way, no matter what she is told.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete.
ℯxplicit 04:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This is needless classification of redirects. The redirects themselves are possibly useful but there's no scheme of
Category:Elections by number. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all Don't understand the point of this.
Number57 08:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)reply
comment The New Brunswick and Nova Scotia categories contain disambiguation pages, not redirects, due to the preexistence of those provinces before federalization.
Mangoe (
talk) 16:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Nova Scotia and New Brunswick — as Mangoe correctly points out, those two contain disambiguation pages rather than redirects, because joining Confederation reset the official numbering from the colonial assemblies, so each number can refer to more than one different election depending on whether you start counting from ground or from 1867, and whether you keep counting Nova Scotia's elections straight or shift everything after #20 up one to keep them in phase with the Great Disappearing 21st Assembly snafu of the 1850s — but delete the rest and the parent category as unnecessary.
Bearcat (
talk) 04:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete all the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick disambiguation pages are premised on original research as the Election authorities in both provinces (Elections Nova Scotia and Elections New Brunswick, respectively) number elections from Confederation. There are no sources for the contention that elections are numbered to include colonial elections.
Nixon Now (
talk) 16:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Related discussion - regarding the numbering scheme of the NB and NS elections, you may be interested in
this discussion.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (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:Cultural depictions of Sean Connery
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 holds a TV series because it includes an "interview" with an actor playing Sean Connery and a redirect. There is no plausible use for it. The faux interview TV show,
The God & Devil Show, is a good reason to review all of these "cultural depictions" categories. They seem like magnets for every trivial mention of a notable person or something that resembles a notable person. That show's article lists dozens of faux interviews which could otherwise be used as bases for equally useless categories.
Crewman Capote (
talk) 23:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
ETA: I used the wrong template on the category, renaming instead of deleting. I changed the nomoination here but I don't know how to change it on the category without messing up the link. Sorry.
Delete The current contents are an article about something that has many parodies and cultural depictions (SC among them) and a redirect. No conceptual objection to this type of category but there's no there there, at least yet.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:16, 26 August 2017 (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:Legendary creatures and Category:Deities, spirits, and mythic beings
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.
"Legendary creature", "Mythical creature" and "Mythical being" are synonymous, but precisely because the cat includes dieties as well, who are no creatures, but creators, the latter is (1) more precise, (2) less offending to theists, which can also prevent edit wars like in 2013
[here].
CN1 (
talk) 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I tend to think of "Legendary creatures" more as creatures from legend, which is often used in vernacular to be similar to fantasy (both genre as well as film). I am not sure if the content here is distracted by the changing use in common language. I have not heard anybody referring to Legendary creatures in a deistic way. --
FULBERT (
talk) 14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
@
CreativeName1: How would you envision the two categories being connected? I suppose I am having trouble envisioning the overall taxonomy you are suggesting
FULBERT (
talk) 01:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)reply
However I'm not sure about the first nomination.
Legendary creature has its own article, while
Mythical being redirects to
Cryptozoology which implies to keep the category name as is, and to remove it as a parent from the second nominated category.
@
Marcocapelle: The redirect is plainly wrong. Proof: (1)
Mythical being = beings from mythology. (2)
Cryptozoology = Study about "hidden" animals. Mythical beings involve also plants and immaterial beings like deities, spirits etc.
CN1 (
talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Of course I realise the redirect is wrong, but for this discussion it's relevant that we don't have an article about Mythical beings.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
There is a rule that states that a category can't have a non-eponymous main article? Because I think
Legendary creatures can still be a good main article, it just would cover only 90 % of it's content instead of the usual 100%.
CN1 (
talk) 07:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
It's not a fixed rule, but it is quite likely that an article
Mythical being does not exist for good reasons, e.g. because
Legendary creatures is considered to be synonymous.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't see how quite likely this is. I find concerns with the name of the article expressed in numerous discussions on the talk page but I never found my proposed name discussed. Chances are higher that nobody thought about it before me. Chances are, nobody of these editors is interested in category questions generally, because I contacted three Wiki-projects and the participation here is not very high. Marco, you say that they are synonymous--is that not a point benefitting the proposal, because it has advantages while meaning the exact same thing?
CN1 (
talk) 16:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Legendary and mythical creatures are synonyms.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:18, 18 August 2017 (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:630s in the Rashidun Caliphate
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:upmerge, this is the only decade category of the Rashidun Caliphate and it only contains a few items.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, it rather looks that in many cases you are misinterpreting the policy of
WP:SMALLCAT as general policy referring to current cat population, whereas it is referring also to the potential of category population. The Rashidun Caliphate is relatively well documented polity with plenty of information available on the decade level and possibly even on the annual level. I will demonstrate it by populating the cat with 10 articles as example that WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply here.
GreyShark (
dibra) 11:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Most of these 10 are just copied over from the subcategories, so this is not a very good demonstration and goes against
WP:SUBCAT. Besides all 10 articles are in a battles subcat of
Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate so the amount of articles in the target will remain very modest after merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom -- I have just altered the main article of
Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate to be
Rashidun Caliphate, so that it has an article that exists. This Caliphate existed 632-661 AD, which is not long enough to need to be split by decades.
Category:History of the Rashidun Caliphate is also unnecessary and could be profitably merged into
Category:Rashidun Caliphate. The two further decade categories also need upmerging like this nom. Could the closing admin, please create the further merges that I am suggesting to remove those just created by Greyshark. I am not doing this myself as it is better to have one open discussion at a time.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:07, 20 August 2017 (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:Cancer in cats and dogs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Relevant pages in separate dog and cat categories, combination category not required.
DferDaisy (
talk) 03:22, 15 August 2017 (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:Heteromyidae stubs
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: No longer needed - a
scan shows that there are only 30 stubs for this category.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:11, 15 August 2017 (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:Actors from the New York metropolitan area
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: Who refers to actors as being from this area? I've never seen it.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose I actually think that actors by metropolitan region is better than actors by specific city.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:05, 15 August 2017 (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:About
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.
Alex ShihTalk 04:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is empty, and there is no obvious class of articles that would fill it, or else every article in the project would belong here. This is not how categories work.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:48, 15 August 2017 (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:Kings
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.
Merge - they don't quite mean the same thing, since "Kings" refers only to males; since males is the norm, we don't need a separate category tree for them.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment (not an oppose): there are more monarchs than just kings, so they should be nominated for merge as well:
Category:Emirs,
Category:Emperors,
Category:Sultans. The merge would imply a massive reorganization though, because most content in these categories is also in some other lower level of
Category:Monarchs, so blindly moving over the content would not do.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose: All Kings are monarchs. Not all monarchs are kings. Subcatagories in
Category:Monarchs are about many different topics about all monarchs. Subcategories in
Category:Kings are only about kings. Please tell me you didn't look at that and still wanted to merge them. Or am I missing something?
CN1 (
talk) 11:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose – a king is one type of monarch, an emir is another. I don't see that there is any particular problem with the present arrangement.
Oculi (
talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose A king is a type of monarch, but there are monarchs with higher titles such as emperors.
Dimadick (
talk) 19:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- Monarchs is appropriate as a container for categories for other titles, kings, emperors, sultans, etc. There may be some unique titles that would be directly in Monarchs, such as Nizams of Hyderbad and Nawabs of Bengal.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)reply
General support thinking about it it seems to me that Emirs/Sultans/Kings all tend to be more about shared name than shared office. Even the distinction between kings and emperors is often hard to define clearly. On the other hand, in many contexts princes are functional monarchs, principalities have often been as independent as kings. Right now this whole category tree seems organized by shared name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:43, 27 August 2017 (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:Sarah.t.life's About Page
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.
Alex ShihTalk 04:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both, as per nom. A category essentially intended for a single page is not appropriate. That is not how we do categories, particularly userspace cats.
DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete both - Category creator is a newbie with an apparently irrepressible urge to do things her own way, no matter what she is told.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 02:24, 15 August 2017 (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.