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 only contained one article (
Andrew Watts) and it wasn't clear from the article whether it was correctly in the category (a link was disambiguated to another Chapeltown and the reference doesn't say which). "People from Leeds" would be enough, at least for people born after 1904.
Peter James (
talk)
19:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The only article seems to have been removed. There is another Chapeltown on the edge of Sheffield, which seems at least as likely, short of evidence of actual right place. Both are in Yorkshire, as is Penistone, so that a Yorkshire category is appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:49, 1 October 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:Australian sheep shearers
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.
Sheep shearing is both a profession and a sporting activity in both Australia and New Zealand. Both of the people mentioned as worthy of inclusion are competitive sports shearers, as are those in the NZ category. I've restored the category links.
Grutness...wha?00:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Reminds me of the old joke. Australian man sees another man in a close "embrace" with a sheep and says to him, "Are you shearing that sheep?". The man replies, "No. It's my sheep and I'm not sharing her with anyone!" (works best with an Australian accent).
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
10:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
delete This looks almost exactly like the kindergarten teachers category which was just deleted. One person is notable as a sheep shearer; one was a WW II pilot, and the rest are all either union leaders or politicians.
Mangoe (
talk)
14:49, 9 October 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.
Church of Ireland archbishops
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment The title "Archbishop of Cashel" works for an article. It does not work for a category which are usually in the plural form as they often are simply lists, as is the case with the current nominations. In which case, "Archbishops of Cashel" is capitalised because it happens to be the first word. Had the article name been "List of archbishops of Cashel", it would not have been capitalised. Having said that, I would not oppose your alt suggestion of
Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Anglican) and
Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Catholic).
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose suggestion - post Reformation the Christian church in Ireland adopted Protestantism and all of its structures organisation and physical wise became part of the Church of Ireland. The Catholic church had to basically start anew with new churches and parochial structure etc. So the bishops and archbishops of the established church in Ireland which had turned Protestant technically are the direct successor but that is a matter of debate. So if you are to change one to have a bracketed distinguishing then the Catholic ones should also and the present page used as a disamb page.
Mabuska(talk)15:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - even if Archbishop is a title, does that mean archbishops is also a title? Seeing as there is only one archbishop for each area at a time there can't be a plural title surely? I think that's the crux of the issue. If archbishops is not a title then use the small a if not then capital A.
Mabuska(talk)15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: your counter-proposal, although not rejected by the nominator, was opposed by
Mabuska as inconsistent with other categories, such as the Catholic siblings. Given the explanations above, are you able to withdraw your opposition to the nomination? –
FayenaticLondon14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename to Anglican archbishops of X (1st choice), per nom, or to Archbishops of X (Anglican) (2nd choice), but not Anglican Archbishops of X. I think this is ultimately a question of style, since both the descriptive form Anglican archbishops of X and the titular form Archbishops of X (Anglican) are accurate. There is not currently a single convention, with 74 categories that use Anglican (arch)bishops of X (
here and
here) and 45 categories that use Anglican (Arch)Bishops of X (
here and
here). There are a few dozen categories named (Arch)Bishops of X (Fooian), but they form a small minority. --
Black Falcon(
talk)04:13, 18 November 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:Kindergarten teachers
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: Of the seven members, maybe one is known for teaching kindergarten, sort of. Two others also are actual educators (and are already categorized, one way or the other, as such); the others are famous for something else, but happened to have taught kindergarten at some point, so for them it is certainly not
WP:DEFINING.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:16, 16 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:Media companies based in South Africa
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:Texts only found in the Septuagint
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.
@
Fayenatic london: Thanks for looking into this a little bit further. It occurs to me now also that the original nomination is flawed because it would unjustly remove the extra books of the Septuagint from the Septuagint tree. Your alternative would solve that problem too. Another solution could be to keep the category and instead nominate
Category:Anagignoskomena to become a disambiguation page, that might also be more in line with the comment of RevelationDirect.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)reply
1 the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint are books. It's known what is included in the Hebrew Bible, and the differences between the versions of the Septuagint are uncontested and minimal. It helps to be able to compare two books to each other. (as compared to a religious convention, for there are many differences between the denominational cannons).
2 I couldn't even easily find "Anagignoskomena" in the wiki universe; in Wikipedia it's a sub-sub chapter of
Biblical apocrypha. The word doesn't exist in wikidata, so it doesn't exist in other wikis, in any language. In contrast to the
Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, which both have Wikipedia entries, in many languages.
3 As the purpose of Wikipedia is to be universally accessible, it's important to use the more common phrases. Therefore, if anything must be deleted, it should be: "Category:Anagignoskomena".
4 It should be realized that the Wikipedia in English serves as a basic international Wikipedia, and as a standard for the Wikipedias of other languages. Writers of this Wikipedia should be aware of this. Therefore, comparing the Hebrew Bible to the Septuagint is more appropriate for non-Christian readers.
Besides, I agree about "
Letter of Aristeas", that it should be moved, as Fayenatic suggested. Shilonite 16:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
שילוני (
talk •
contribs)
I agree with these points and would like to stress that ALT2 (defined further up as keeping the category and instead nominating
Category:Anagignoskomena to become a disambiguation page) would solve most issues addressed in this discussion. 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've heard "Anagignoskomena" to refer to books in the Eastern or African cannons but not found in the Catholic one. Clearly though, we would need a well sourced article to define this obscure term.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. If some 2000 years later it still can't be positively defined, we can explain it in the text without needing a category that sounds like a riddle.
gidonb (
talk)
20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Alt 2 Groups things by what they are instead of what they aren't and removes a lot of the ambiguities. (Looking forward, I'm still not sold on keeping
Category:Anagignoskomena without a main article but that's outside of this nomination.) This is a good solution!
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:39, 27 October 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.
French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. At the moment, this seems to be the, if slightly thin, consensus. If somebody wants to discuss possible diffusion/rediffusion at the WikiProject level, and come to a firm consensus for that, then these can be recreated or alternatively re-diffused at some point, with that consensus as justification, but for now, merge it is.
The BushrangerOne ping only06:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge on the one hand per
WP:SMALLCAT, this scheme leads to many very small categories; on the other hand the scheme is anachronistic, these administrative regions did not exist during the French Revolution.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge most, not all - Ile de France is well enough populated to keep, as is Burgundy. For the rest, I would prefer to be merging to pre-revolutionary provinces, rather than post-revolutionary departments, if that will create a category of at least 5 articles. However there is a quantity of undiffused articles: will any of these make the number up to 5?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I see some problems here. Firstly, I have had a look at some of these undiffused articles, and in some cases the reason why they are undiffused is that it is not obvious which location they should be identified with. Secondly, the pre-revolutionary provinces and their exact borders are now rather obscure, even for Wikipedians who know a bit about France, making this task difficult.
PatGallacher (
talk)
17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge All I clicked through a half dozen articles and was expecting to either see a variety of the execution based on locations (as with US states) or people shipped to these places for execution (like with concentration camps). I saw neither and that's before we get to the small categories or historical accuracy issues. I can't imagine a navigation use for this.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge All I agree with the statements above about confusion in how the categories are divided, but I think there is a more serious problem here. People use categories to find collections of related articles, but an arbitrary geographic division renders this meaningless. If you are looking for a collection of articles on people executed during the Terror this is a useless system, since you would have to click through two dozen categories to find the articles you needed.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
12:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
As implied in my opinion, my concern was not so much with the population of the categories as it was with the exaggeration in the number of conditions to be included in the categories. In Wikipedian we sometimes speak of reaching a intersection that is no longer defining. So yes,
Marco, I set out to solve another problem than the one you raised and no,
Fayenatic, I do not think the detail at the level of
Category:Executed people from Alsace is sufficient, although some spatial detail would be better than none at all.
Since I do like spatial detail also in combination with the French revolution killings I'm willing to forgo just a few cases of 1 member categories, included for consistency and a few other low population categories. Again not so much my concern, however the population per category and another concern that someone has raised before: that some of these geographies are not so well known anymore could both be resolved by using current geographies. Personally I'm fine also with the old ones, as long as it is one level higher than the current.
And yes, also the categories I suggested would be marginally better populated. Hardly a difference is still a difference. Yet I wasn't after the 1 member or so more per category. I was after organizing this once by execution method and once by region.
gidonb (
talk)
02:28, 31 October 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:Anime and manga ships
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: Category is too small, per
WP:NARROWCAT the ships don't need to be distinguished in their own subcategory as being from Anime/manga. It arguably only has one member, as the Space Battleship Yamato is not generally defined as a "ship" rather than a "spaceship".ZXCVBNM (
TALK)15:46, 1 October 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:Universal Century
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.
That would imply that it's disambiguating from another "Universal Century", which it isn't. Starting with Gundam unifies it more with the parent category.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)02:34, 14 October 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:Gundam weapons
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:Anime and manga weapons
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:Fictional Japanese swords
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.
I support the merge in principle but I note that neither of the two member articles is really about fictional swords so there may be nothing to merge.
Zanbatō is about a real type of sword although there is coverage of its use in fiction.
Japanese swords in fiction is an essay article that needs some attention. It seems to be more about real sword types being used in fictional settings than about fictional swords or fictional types of swords. So I agree that the category is unnecessarily narrow, I just question whether any merge is necessary either? Maybe this is a delete instead? --
DanielRigal (
talk)
17:32, 1 October 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:Catalonian building and structure 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.
Support merging Catalonian into Catalan. According to the webpage the official demonym is Catalan. I made the Catalonian category in error.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:39, 1 October 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:American criminals by ethnic or national origin
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. I will upmerge the Irish and Italian 'mobsters' subcategories to the appropriate American people of [X] descent by occupation category, so they are not completely removed from that category tree. --
Black Falcon(
talk)21:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
There is certainly an ethnic component to criminal gangs and crime families, so we have
Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity tree. This category tree is different though: it categories individual biography articles by the intersection of ethnicity and criminal conviction. I'm certainly open to categories grouping sociological/criminology articles about ethnicity and crime but assuming these attributes are automatically linked fore each person is unfounded and prone to abuse. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Background We recently deleted the African American subcategory
here that was being used partially to group civil rights protesters. Before that, we deleted a similar category tree
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and previous discussions. We don't really need to rehash in detail why categories like this are a bad idea. Even
Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity is iffy, and could be a
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issue if nothing else. Just because "something" potentially has a factual basis doesn't mean WP has to write about it much less create likely controversial categories for it. If the topic itself isn't notable, we don't need a category for it, and organized crime's potential correlations with ethnic or national backgrounds doesn't appear to be a notable topic. More of the point of the current nomination, nor does an alleged correlation between being Filipino or Irish and and being convicted of a crime. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. I gave the exact same reasoning on the deletion discussion of African-American criminals last month. Keep ethnicity in the organized crime category where it actually (somewhat) matters. Listing any criminal by ethnicity is not only coincidental, it's also discriminating unless we have one for every single ethnicity (which we obviously won't).
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (
talk)
13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Filipino. The other two have a very well populated "mobsters" subcat. Mafia-related organised crime will all be Italian-related, and more specifically Sicilian or Neopolitan.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:30, 1 October 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.
1 and 2 article categories named after composers
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:deleteCategory:Stanisław Moniuszko (contains only the main article and a "Compositions by" subcategory), no consensus on the rest (contain more than one article and/or multiple subcategories, or opposition to merge target) and recommend separate nominations unless the categories are directly related (e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan). --
Black Falcon(
talk)19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
These categories are all underpopulated and the composers are already linked in every article so this isn't aiding navigation. A lot of these nominations have well populated subcategories for the works they created, but
WP:OCEPON discourages us from creating eponymous categories on that basis alone. No objection to recreating any of the categories should we ever get up to 5 or so directly related articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep some -- Karl Jenkins is parenting two categories, which will be orphaned of a composer category. Merging Sullivan to Gilbert and Sullivan does not work because there are a few works by Sullivan beside the G&S operettas. However where there is nothing but a main article on the composer and a compositions category, we do not need an EPON cat, as the bio will be a main article for the compositions category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a case of a wider issue on eponymous categories. Where possible, it is better to downmerge to one category for their work, with the bio-article becoming the main article for a works, or songs or discography category. This applies to
Raveendran and perhaps
Karl Jenkins. It will not work for Gilbert & Sullivan, because not all their work was joint, though the most famous works were. For Paus we would end off with a category specific to him in a family category, which will look odd. I support the principle of OCEPON, but we cannot upmerge discs, songs, etc, because they have their own trees.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Underpopulated categories are rarely created one by one. For instance, the Jenkins and Mansell categories were created the same week by the same author while the individual Gilbert and Sullivan categories were created in the exact same minute.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I did not claim they were made one by one. I claim that there are specific consideration to be addressed for each category hence the discussion should not have been held together.
gidonb (
talk)
12:48, 22 October 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:Fictional female military personnel by ethnicity or nationality
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: Unnecessary intermediate category layer; the parent category contains three subcats (this is one of them), and this category only contains one subcat. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk)01:22, 1 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: This only contained one article (
Andrew Watts) and it wasn't clear from the article whether it was correctly in the category (a link was disambiguated to another Chapeltown and the reference doesn't say which). "People from Leeds" would be enough, at least for people born after 1904.
Peter James (
talk)
19:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The only article seems to have been removed. There is another Chapeltown on the edge of Sheffield, which seems at least as likely, short of evidence of actual right place. Both are in Yorkshire, as is Penistone, so that a Yorkshire category is appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:49, 1 October 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:Australian sheep shearers
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.
Sheep shearing is both a profession and a sporting activity in both Australia and New Zealand. Both of the people mentioned as worthy of inclusion are competitive sports shearers, as are those in the NZ category. I've restored the category links.
Grutness...wha?00:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Reminds me of the old joke. Australian man sees another man in a close "embrace" with a sheep and says to him, "Are you shearing that sheep?". The man replies, "No. It's my sheep and I'm not sharing her with anyone!" (works best with an Australian accent).
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
10:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
delete This looks almost exactly like the kindergarten teachers category which was just deleted. One person is notable as a sheep shearer; one was a WW II pilot, and the rest are all either union leaders or politicians.
Mangoe (
talk)
14:49, 9 October 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.
Church of Ireland archbishops
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment The title "Archbishop of Cashel" works for an article. It does not work for a category which are usually in the plural form as they often are simply lists, as is the case with the current nominations. In which case, "Archbishops of Cashel" is capitalised because it happens to be the first word. Had the article name been "List of archbishops of Cashel", it would not have been capitalised. Having said that, I would not oppose your alt suggestion of
Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Anglican) and
Category:Archbishops of Cashel (Catholic).
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
12:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose suggestion - post Reformation the Christian church in Ireland adopted Protestantism and all of its structures organisation and physical wise became part of the Church of Ireland. The Catholic church had to basically start anew with new churches and parochial structure etc. So the bishops and archbishops of the established church in Ireland which had turned Protestant technically are the direct successor but that is a matter of debate. So if you are to change one to have a bracketed distinguishing then the Catholic ones should also and the present page used as a disamb page.
Mabuska(talk)15:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - even if Archbishop is a title, does that mean archbishops is also a title? Seeing as there is only one archbishop for each area at a time there can't be a plural title surely? I think that's the crux of the issue. If archbishops is not a title then use the small a if not then capital A.
Mabuska(talk)15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: your counter-proposal, although not rejected by the nominator, was opposed by
Mabuska as inconsistent with other categories, such as the Catholic siblings. Given the explanations above, are you able to withdraw your opposition to the nomination? –
FayenaticLondon14:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename to Anglican archbishops of X (1st choice), per nom, or to Archbishops of X (Anglican) (2nd choice), but not Anglican Archbishops of X. I think this is ultimately a question of style, since both the descriptive form Anglican archbishops of X and the titular form Archbishops of X (Anglican) are accurate. There is not currently a single convention, with 74 categories that use Anglican (arch)bishops of X (
here and
here) and 45 categories that use Anglican (Arch)Bishops of X (
here and
here). There are a few dozen categories named (Arch)Bishops of X (Fooian), but they form a small minority. --
Black Falcon(
talk)04:13, 18 November 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:Kindergarten teachers
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: Of the seven members, maybe one is known for teaching kindergarten, sort of. Two others also are actual educators (and are already categorized, one way or the other, as such); the others are famous for something else, but happened to have taught kindergarten at some point, so for them it is certainly not
WP:DEFINING.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:16, 16 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:Media companies based in South Africa
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:Texts only found in the Septuagint
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.
@
Fayenatic london: Thanks for looking into this a little bit further. It occurs to me now also that the original nomination is flawed because it would unjustly remove the extra books of the Septuagint from the Septuagint tree. Your alternative would solve that problem too. Another solution could be to keep the category and instead nominate
Category:Anagignoskomena to become a disambiguation page, that might also be more in line with the comment of RevelationDirect.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)reply
1 the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint are books. It's known what is included in the Hebrew Bible, and the differences between the versions of the Septuagint are uncontested and minimal. It helps to be able to compare two books to each other. (as compared to a religious convention, for there are many differences between the denominational cannons).
2 I couldn't even easily find "Anagignoskomena" in the wiki universe; in Wikipedia it's a sub-sub chapter of
Biblical apocrypha. The word doesn't exist in wikidata, so it doesn't exist in other wikis, in any language. In contrast to the
Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, which both have Wikipedia entries, in many languages.
3 As the purpose of Wikipedia is to be universally accessible, it's important to use the more common phrases. Therefore, if anything must be deleted, it should be: "Category:Anagignoskomena".
4 It should be realized that the Wikipedia in English serves as a basic international Wikipedia, and as a standard for the Wikipedias of other languages. Writers of this Wikipedia should be aware of this. Therefore, comparing the Hebrew Bible to the Septuagint is more appropriate for non-Christian readers.
Besides, I agree about "
Letter of Aristeas", that it should be moved, as Fayenatic suggested. Shilonite 16:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
שילוני (
talk •
contribs)
I agree with these points and would like to stress that ALT2 (defined further up as keeping the category and instead nominating
Category:Anagignoskomena to become a disambiguation page) would solve most issues addressed in this discussion. 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've heard "Anagignoskomena" to refer to books in the Eastern or African cannons but not found in the Catholic one. Clearly though, we would need a well sourced article to define this obscure term.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. If some 2000 years later it still can't be positively defined, we can explain it in the text without needing a category that sounds like a riddle.
gidonb (
talk)
20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Alt 2 Groups things by what they are instead of what they aren't and removes a lot of the ambiguities. (Looking forward, I'm still not sold on keeping
Category:Anagignoskomena without a main article but that's outside of this nomination.) This is a good solution!
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:39, 27 October 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.
French people executed by guillotine during the French Revolution
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. At the moment, this seems to be the, if slightly thin, consensus. If somebody wants to discuss possible diffusion/rediffusion at the WikiProject level, and come to a firm consensus for that, then these can be recreated or alternatively re-diffused at some point, with that consensus as justification, but for now, merge it is.
The BushrangerOne ping only06:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge on the one hand per
WP:SMALLCAT, this scheme leads to many very small categories; on the other hand the scheme is anachronistic, these administrative regions did not exist during the French Revolution.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge most, not all - Ile de France is well enough populated to keep, as is Burgundy. For the rest, I would prefer to be merging to pre-revolutionary provinces, rather than post-revolutionary departments, if that will create a category of at least 5 articles. However there is a quantity of undiffused articles: will any of these make the number up to 5?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I see some problems here. Firstly, I have had a look at some of these undiffused articles, and in some cases the reason why they are undiffused is that it is not obvious which location they should be identified with. Secondly, the pre-revolutionary provinces and their exact borders are now rather obscure, even for Wikipedians who know a bit about France, making this task difficult.
PatGallacher (
talk)
17:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge All I clicked through a half dozen articles and was expecting to either see a variety of the execution based on locations (as with US states) or people shipped to these places for execution (like with concentration camps). I saw neither and that's before we get to the small categories or historical accuracy issues. I can't imagine a navigation use for this.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
09:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge All I agree with the statements above about confusion in how the categories are divided, but I think there is a more serious problem here. People use categories to find collections of related articles, but an arbitrary geographic division renders this meaningless. If you are looking for a collection of articles on people executed during the Terror this is a useless system, since you would have to click through two dozen categories to find the articles you needed.--
Jackyd101 (
talk)
12:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
As implied in my opinion, my concern was not so much with the population of the categories as it was with the exaggeration in the number of conditions to be included in the categories. In Wikipedian we sometimes speak of reaching a intersection that is no longer defining. So yes,
Marco, I set out to solve another problem than the one you raised and no,
Fayenatic, I do not think the detail at the level of
Category:Executed people from Alsace is sufficient, although some spatial detail would be better than none at all.
Since I do like spatial detail also in combination with the French revolution killings I'm willing to forgo just a few cases of 1 member categories, included for consistency and a few other low population categories. Again not so much my concern, however the population per category and another concern that someone has raised before: that some of these geographies are not so well known anymore could both be resolved by using current geographies. Personally I'm fine also with the old ones, as long as it is one level higher than the current.
And yes, also the categories I suggested would be marginally better populated. Hardly a difference is still a difference. Yet I wasn't after the 1 member or so more per category. I was after organizing this once by execution method and once by region.
gidonb (
talk)
02:28, 31 October 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:Anime and manga ships
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: Category is too small, per
WP:NARROWCAT the ships don't need to be distinguished in their own subcategory as being from Anime/manga. It arguably only has one member, as the Space Battleship Yamato is not generally defined as a "ship" rather than a "spaceship".ZXCVBNM (
TALK)15:46, 1 October 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:Universal Century
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.
That would imply that it's disambiguating from another "Universal Century", which it isn't. Starting with Gundam unifies it more with the parent category.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)02:34, 14 October 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:Gundam weapons
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:Anime and manga weapons
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:Fictional Japanese swords
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.
I support the merge in principle but I note that neither of the two member articles is really about fictional swords so there may be nothing to merge.
Zanbatō is about a real type of sword although there is coverage of its use in fiction.
Japanese swords in fiction is an essay article that needs some attention. It seems to be more about real sword types being used in fictional settings than about fictional swords or fictional types of swords. So I agree that the category is unnecessarily narrow, I just question whether any merge is necessary either? Maybe this is a delete instead? --
DanielRigal (
talk)
17:32, 1 October 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:Catalonian building and structure 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.
Support merging Catalonian into Catalan. According to the webpage the official demonym is Catalan. I made the Catalonian category in error.
Dawynn (
talk)
10:39, 1 October 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:American criminals by ethnic or national origin
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. I will upmerge the Irish and Italian 'mobsters' subcategories to the appropriate American people of [X] descent by occupation category, so they are not completely removed from that category tree. --
Black Falcon(
talk)21:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)reply
There is certainly an ethnic component to criminal gangs and crime families, so we have
Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity tree. This category tree is different though: it categories individual biography articles by the intersection of ethnicity and criminal conviction. I'm certainly open to categories grouping sociological/criminology articles about ethnicity and crime but assuming these attributes are automatically linked fore each person is unfounded and prone to abuse. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Background We recently deleted the African American subcategory
here that was being used partially to group civil rights protesters. Before that, we deleted a similar category tree
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and previous discussions. We don't really need to rehash in detail why categories like this are a bad idea. Even
Category:Organized crime in the United States by ethnicity is iffy, and could be a
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issue if nothing else. Just because "something" potentially has a factual basis doesn't mean WP has to write about it much less create likely controversial categories for it. If the topic itself isn't notable, we don't need a category for it, and organized crime's potential correlations with ethnic or national backgrounds doesn't appear to be a notable topic. More of the point of the current nomination, nor does an alleged correlation between being Filipino or Irish and and being convicted of a crime. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. I gave the exact same reasoning on the deletion discussion of African-American criminals last month. Keep ethnicity in the organized crime category where it actually (somewhat) matters. Listing any criminal by ethnicity is not only coincidental, it's also discriminating unless we have one for every single ethnicity (which we obviously won't).
Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (
talk)
13:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Filipino. The other two have a very well populated "mobsters" subcat. Mafia-related organised crime will all be Italian-related, and more specifically Sicilian or Neopolitan.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:30, 1 October 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.
1 and 2 article categories named after composers
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:deleteCategory:Stanisław Moniuszko (contains only the main article and a "Compositions by" subcategory), no consensus on the rest (contain more than one article and/or multiple subcategories, or opposition to merge target) and recommend separate nominations unless the categories are directly related (e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan). --
Black Falcon(
talk)19:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
These categories are all underpopulated and the composers are already linked in every article so this isn't aiding navigation. A lot of these nominations have well populated subcategories for the works they created, but
WP:OCEPON discourages us from creating eponymous categories on that basis alone. No objection to recreating any of the categories should we ever get up to 5 or so directly related articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep some -- Karl Jenkins is parenting two categories, which will be orphaned of a composer category. Merging Sullivan to Gilbert and Sullivan does not work because there are a few works by Sullivan beside the G&S operettas. However where there is nothing but a main article on the composer and a compositions category, we do not need an EPON cat, as the bio will be a main article for the compositions category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a case of a wider issue on eponymous categories. Where possible, it is better to downmerge to one category for their work, with the bio-article becoming the main article for a works, or songs or discography category. This applies to
Raveendran and perhaps
Karl Jenkins. It will not work for Gilbert & Sullivan, because not all their work was joint, though the most famous works were. For Paus we would end off with a category specific to him in a family category, which will look odd. I support the principle of OCEPON, but we cannot upmerge discs, songs, etc, because they have their own trees.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Underpopulated categories are rarely created one by one. For instance, the Jenkins and Mansell categories were created the same week by the same author while the individual Gilbert and Sullivan categories were created in the exact same minute.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I did not claim they were made one by one. I claim that there are specific consideration to be addressed for each category hence the discussion should not have been held together.
gidonb (
talk)
12:48, 22 October 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:Fictional female military personnel by ethnicity or nationality
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: Unnecessary intermediate category layer; the parent category contains three subcats (this is one of them), and this category only contains one subcat. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk)01:22, 1 October 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.