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.
Archbishops by diocese in country Foo
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 Most European countries are so small that only a couple of archbishops are present. Many only have a single archbishop. A handful have more than 4. Should be deleted per WP:Smallcat. A triple intersection of archbishop / diocese / country is excessive. The usual
Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Foo is sufficient to contain them as all archbishops are just bishops.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: Thank you. Looks more convenient a proposal. However, still not sure, though. Would have to consider more arguments. On a side note, why don't you consider dropping the largely deciprated "Roman" disambiguator for the merge destination while you're at it?
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Either do this for all countries or for none, to keep the category tree consistent. However if upmerged there must also be a second merge target, for example, it should also be merged to
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia. The latter would be a more important reason to merge, because every archbishops category contains hardly anything but the by-diocese subcategory. That is even the case in the larger countries, so this is a redundant category layer.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Probably keep -- I agree that 2-4 per country is on the small side, according to the normal arguments; while archbishops are by their ordination merely a variety of bishop. Nevertheless, they are bishops in authority over other bishops. As such the numbers are inevitably small, but the normal solution would be to merge with a higher category, not a lower one, but there is nothing higher that is obvious to use until we get to continent, but that is too high. We might theoetically merge Spain and Portugal to Iberia; Ireland, England, etc to British Isles; Croatia, Bosnia, Roumania, etc to Balkans; etc, butthat would not be normal practice. Accordingly Keep.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that for now (pending further discussion) we still have the possibility to merge the archbishops-by-diocese categories to the plain archbishops categories, so keeping them all within the same country. That is something we may well do.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Agree. For now go with the merges. Later we'll talk about further deletions / upmerges. Will also need to rename to be rid of the deprecated "Roman" part.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
10:18, 19 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: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:Undrafted National Basketball Association players
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.
Keep Being undrafted is not equivalent in all sports. In hockey for example is pretty rare for it to happen, rare enough so that in any article that goes in depth on a player that was undrafted it will mention it. It is often one of if not the most defining aspects of a player. -
DJSasso (
talk)
03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep NBA and NHL categories. In the NBA, there is intense interest in the draft and it is the primary vehicle for players getting to the NBA. Undrafted NBA players are relatively rare because: 1) Unlike the NFL, rosters are small and 2) Unlike baseball, players generally go directly to the top league with fewer average stops in between. If a player makes the NBA without being drafted it is generally mentioned in any in-depth profile, often cited as a symbol that the player has overcome the odds in reaching the league. This is true in obituaries (see
here: "Although Gray was not drafted, he played in the NBA from 1996 to 2000"), player profiles (see
here: "McConnell made the Sixers as an undrafted rookie during the 2015-16 season. This past season, he started in 51 of his 81 games played, McConnell was a difference-maker, ranking 10th in the league in steals at 1.65 per game and tied for 12th in assists (6.6). He also averaged 6.9 points and 3.1 rebounds."), or in general rankings of all-time top undrafted players (
see here). A great recent example is
a discussion of Ben Wallace as a potential basketball Hall of Famer. Some quotes - "It would be easy for a big-haired, undersized, undrafted, low-scoring former Pistons center to get overlooked and overshadowed. Story of his life. Fortunately, his immense body of work over a remarkable 16-year career should overcome whatever he may lack in terms of name recognition and national acclaim." and "“Take a step back and look at the fact that Ben Wallace was undrafted and you have what may be the most remarkable career in sports history,” Carlisle said." I would add that the NBA has draft categories for each team in its history and having a category for those who were not drafted is a natural complement to these. I focused on the NBA category, but my experience is that undrafted players are treated similarly with respect to the NHL.
Rikster2 (
talk)
22:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep the NHL. It splits up everyone by drafting team, so someone not in any of those categories looks like the drafting team is simply missing, so there ought to be a hidden maintenance category for people who never got drafted by anyone. Ditto with the NBA. No comment on the WNBA, since they don't appear to have such a scheme; the category needs to be deleted or needs to be retained as a content category, and I don't have an opinion on that.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:51, 22 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:History of 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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. As pointed out in the discussion, the application of "History of..." categories has been inconsistent on the project in a broad sense, lacking a precedent for the merge. Even in this particular discussion, there is not enough support come to the conclusion that consensus has been reached in order to merge the contents of the categories one way or the other.
ℯxplicit06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment (reacting on
User:Black Falcon) it could be a solution to always name the top category of former countries "History of", with subcategories e.g. "History by period" and "History by topic" just like we have with history of currently existing countries. Similarly history by topic would contain cultural history (instead of culture), geographical history (instead of geography) etc. In that case the only exception in mimicking the history of currently existing countries category would be the People subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't think that would work well,
Marcocapelle. (i) In some other cases there is sufficient content to make a "History of..." sub-cat well worth having for navigation. (ii) It is standard practice that the top category name matches the lead article, except in cases of ambiguity. Under our current procedures, if there was a sole category called "History of...", it could be speedily renamed without those words under
WP:C2D. IMHO it works fine, where there is less content, to have only one category named after the main article, but included in the "History" hierarchies. –
FayenaticLondon08:18, 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.
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
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.
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
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
Oppose -- We may have a mess, but there is a technical definition for "myth" which is not a synonym of legend. I ask myself what we do with
gorgon, a legendary creature and
yeti, an animal that may exist, but whose existence remains unproved. Neither is a deity.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:30, 18 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:Czech and Slovak Oscar noms
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: Per
this discussion at WT:FILM and
WP:OVERCAT/
WP:OCAWARD - being submitted for a potential nomination for an award is overcategorization. Each year, 70 to 80 films are selected, with five eventually getting through to Oscar night. With other Oscar awards, we don't have categories for award nominations, just the winners. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Categories for film submissions to Awards and Filme Festivals are not meaningful nor defining. Unless a film gets nominated, the information of its submission for nomination is uninmportant even to mention in the article, let alone to make a category for it.
HoverfishTalk12:15, 19 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:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland 1939-1945
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.
As for the category name, we probably don't need "Poles" and "Polish citizens", one of them should be sufficient. However it's a bit doubtful whether this is a useful category, two of the articles don't even mention helping Jews and if we remove them there are very few articles left in the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename as proposed; strongly oppose deletion. Open to supporting other changes (at a minimum, the hyphen should be changed to an en-dash). One of the main articles is titled
Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and there is a disambiguation page
Occupation of Poland (disambiguation), which suggests to me that renaming the category to use the simplified phrase "occupied Poland" is unnecessarily ambiguous. With respect to deletion, two of the articles in the category do not explicitly mention Jews, but one mentions membership in
Żegota, the Council to Aid Jews, an underground resistance organization. Also, not all Poles who assisted Jews are
Righteous Among the Nations; that's a designation awarded by the Israeli government. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk19:19, 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:Reformed denominations
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 Calvinism the article is there for common name reasons (despite my objections), because the broad movement is often called Calvinism, but the denominations and people are much more commonly referred to as Reformed. I know of no denominations with Calvinist in there names. I would be ok with Calvinist and Reformed. --
JFH (
talk)
13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Reformed" is more than just your soteriology and sacramental theology (which is what's generally meant by "Calvinist"); it's the whole method of theological thinking and consequent acting, and that method is generally taught by people who teach a Calvinist soteriology because it fits with a general Reformed outlook. "Calvinist and Reformed denominations" is reasonable, but "Reformed" is not a subset or synonym of "Calvinist".
Nyttend (
talk)
11:54, 22 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:Mysterious Island films
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:Journey to the Center of the Earth films
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 female World War I veterans
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 female World War II veterans
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:Azerbaijanis from Tehran
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: Trivial combination of ethnicity and location. In the
Ethnicities in Iran article it says ethnic Azerbaijanis make up 16% of Iran's population, while in
Demographics of Tehran it says they make 20-30%, so while larger still not an overall majority. As the capital Tehran is a multi-ethnic city, so this shouldn't be considered surprising.
Keep -- This is not a trivial intersection. We have hundreds of expatriate and descent categories. However most of these are national categories. In this case we have enough population to have it by city. Then normal format would require the parent to be
Category:Iranians of Azerbaijani descent, or perhaps more accurately
Category:Iranians of Azeri descent, since I suspect that this is largely about a resident ethnic minority, who never where in the present Azerbaijan, being an area conquered by Russian in the 19th century.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I had not spotted
Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis, or if I did, I missed its significance. That would be a merge target, but I still fail to see why a well-populated category such as this becomes a trivial intersection. Upmerge in preference to plain deletion, but my view is that if an intersection of two legitimate categories can be adequately populated, we should retain it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept; there's a difference between Azeris (who you are) and Azerbaijanis (where your citizenship is), and this category appears to conflate them. Unless Azerbaijan has a really broad jus sanguinis policy (like Germany until recently), most people originating in Tehran are not Azerbaijani.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That's an interesting point because afaics the articles that are in this category conflate these concepts similarly. Besides they mostly mention "descent" which seems to imply that these are people descending from inhabitants of the former Soviet republic Azerbaijan. Besides quite a lot of articles don't mention this characteristic at all, it seems like there is some OR involved in this categorization scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That's why
User:Nyttend mentioned these peoples ple are presumably Azeris rather than Azerbaijanis, but in articles they are nevertheless referred to as Iranian Azerbaijanis. That is, insofar Azerbaijani is mentioned at all, which is too often not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:19, 23 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.
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.
Archbishops by diocese in country Foo
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 Most European countries are so small that only a couple of archbishops are present. Many only have a single archbishop. A handful have more than 4. Should be deleted per WP:Smallcat. A triple intersection of archbishop / diocese / country is excessive. The usual
Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Foo is sufficient to contain them as all archbishops are just bishops.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: Thank you. Looks more convenient a proposal. However, still not sure, though. Would have to consider more arguments. On a side note, why don't you consider dropping the largely deciprated "Roman" disambiguator for the merge destination while you're at it?
Chicbyaccident (
talk)
20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Either do this for all countries or for none, to keep the category tree consistent. However if upmerged there must also be a second merge target, for example, it should also be merged to
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia. The latter would be a more important reason to merge, because every archbishops category contains hardly anything but the by-diocese subcategory. That is even the case in the larger countries, so this is a redundant category layer.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Probably keep -- I agree that 2-4 per country is on the small side, according to the normal arguments; while archbishops are by their ordination merely a variety of bishop. Nevertheless, they are bishops in authority over other bishops. As such the numbers are inevitably small, but the normal solution would be to merge with a higher category, not a lower one, but there is nothing higher that is obvious to use until we get to continent, but that is too high. We might theoetically merge Spain and Portugal to Iberia; Ireland, England, etc to British Isles; Croatia, Bosnia, Roumania, etc to Balkans; etc, butthat would not be normal practice. Accordingly Keep.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that for now (pending further discussion) we still have the possibility to merge the archbishops-by-diocese categories to the plain archbishops categories, so keeping them all within the same country. That is something we may well do.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Agree. For now go with the merges. Later we'll talk about further deletions / upmerges. Will also need to rename to be rid of the deprecated "Roman" part.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
10:18, 19 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: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:Undrafted National Basketball Association players
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.
Keep Being undrafted is not equivalent in all sports. In hockey for example is pretty rare for it to happen, rare enough so that in any article that goes in depth on a player that was undrafted it will mention it. It is often one of if not the most defining aspects of a player. -
DJSasso (
talk)
03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep NBA and NHL categories. In the NBA, there is intense interest in the draft and it is the primary vehicle for players getting to the NBA. Undrafted NBA players are relatively rare because: 1) Unlike the NFL, rosters are small and 2) Unlike baseball, players generally go directly to the top league with fewer average stops in between. If a player makes the NBA without being drafted it is generally mentioned in any in-depth profile, often cited as a symbol that the player has overcome the odds in reaching the league. This is true in obituaries (see
here: "Although Gray was not drafted, he played in the NBA from 1996 to 2000"), player profiles (see
here: "McConnell made the Sixers as an undrafted rookie during the 2015-16 season. This past season, he started in 51 of his 81 games played, McConnell was a difference-maker, ranking 10th in the league in steals at 1.65 per game and tied for 12th in assists (6.6). He also averaged 6.9 points and 3.1 rebounds."), or in general rankings of all-time top undrafted players (
see here). A great recent example is
a discussion of Ben Wallace as a potential basketball Hall of Famer. Some quotes - "It would be easy for a big-haired, undersized, undrafted, low-scoring former Pistons center to get overlooked and overshadowed. Story of his life. Fortunately, his immense body of work over a remarkable 16-year career should overcome whatever he may lack in terms of name recognition and national acclaim." and "“Take a step back and look at the fact that Ben Wallace was undrafted and you have what may be the most remarkable career in sports history,” Carlisle said." I would add that the NBA has draft categories for each team in its history and having a category for those who were not drafted is a natural complement to these. I focused on the NBA category, but my experience is that undrafted players are treated similarly with respect to the NHL.
Rikster2 (
talk)
22:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep the NHL. It splits up everyone by drafting team, so someone not in any of those categories looks like the drafting team is simply missing, so there ought to be a hidden maintenance category for people who never got drafted by anyone. Ditto with the NBA. No comment on the WNBA, since they don't appear to have such a scheme; the category needs to be deleted or needs to be retained as a content category, and I don't have an opinion on that.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:51, 22 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:History of 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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. As pointed out in the discussion, the application of "History of..." categories has been inconsistent on the project in a broad sense, lacking a precedent for the merge. Even in this particular discussion, there is not enough support come to the conclusion that consensus has been reached in order to merge the contents of the categories one way or the other.
ℯxplicit06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment (reacting on
User:Black Falcon) it could be a solution to always name the top category of former countries "History of", with subcategories e.g. "History by period" and "History by topic" just like we have with history of currently existing countries. Similarly history by topic would contain cultural history (instead of culture), geographical history (instead of geography) etc. In that case the only exception in mimicking the history of currently existing countries category would be the People subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't think that would work well,
Marcocapelle. (i) In some other cases there is sufficient content to make a "History of..." sub-cat well worth having for navigation. (ii) It is standard practice that the top category name matches the lead article, except in cases of ambiguity. Under our current procedures, if there was a sole category called "History of...", it could be speedily renamed without those words under
WP:C2D. IMHO it works fine, where there is less content, to have only one category named after the main article, but included in the "History" hierarchies. –
FayenaticLondon08:18, 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.
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
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.
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
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
Oppose -- We may have a mess, but there is a technical definition for "myth" which is not a synonym of legend. I ask myself what we do with
gorgon, a legendary creature and
yeti, an animal that may exist, but whose existence remains unproved. Neither is a deity.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:30, 18 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:Czech and Slovak Oscar noms
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: Per
this discussion at WT:FILM and
WP:OVERCAT/
WP:OCAWARD - being submitted for a potential nomination for an award is overcategorization. Each year, 70 to 80 films are selected, with five eventually getting through to Oscar night. With other Oscar awards, we don't have categories for award nominations, just the winners. LugnutsFire Walk with Me13:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Categories for film submissions to Awards and Filme Festivals are not meaningful nor defining. Unless a film gets nominated, the information of its submission for nomination is uninmportant even to mention in the article, let alone to make a category for it.
HoverfishTalk12:15, 19 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:Poles and Polish citizens helping Jews in occupied Poland 1939-1945
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.
As for the category name, we probably don't need "Poles" and "Polish citizens", one of them should be sufficient. However it's a bit doubtful whether this is a useful category, two of the articles don't even mention helping Jews and if we remove them there are very few articles left in the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename as proposed; strongly oppose deletion. Open to supporting other changes (at a minimum, the hyphen should be changed to an en-dash). One of the main articles is titled
Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and there is a disambiguation page
Occupation of Poland (disambiguation), which suggests to me that renaming the category to use the simplified phrase "occupied Poland" is unnecessarily ambiguous. With respect to deletion, two of the articles in the category do not explicitly mention Jews, but one mentions membership in
Żegota, the Council to Aid Jews, an underground resistance organization. Also, not all Poles who assisted Jews are
Righteous Among the Nations; that's a designation awarded by the Israeli government. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk19:19, 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:Reformed denominations
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 Calvinism the article is there for common name reasons (despite my objections), because the broad movement is often called Calvinism, but the denominations and people are much more commonly referred to as Reformed. I know of no denominations with Calvinist in there names. I would be ok with Calvinist and Reformed. --
JFH (
talk)
13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Reformed" is more than just your soteriology and sacramental theology (which is what's generally meant by "Calvinist"); it's the whole method of theological thinking and consequent acting, and that method is generally taught by people who teach a Calvinist soteriology because it fits with a general Reformed outlook. "Calvinist and Reformed denominations" is reasonable, but "Reformed" is not a subset or synonym of "Calvinist".
Nyttend (
talk)
11:54, 22 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:Mysterious Island films
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:Journey to the Center of the Earth films
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 female World War I veterans
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 female World War II veterans
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:Azerbaijanis from Tehran
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: Trivial combination of ethnicity and location. In the
Ethnicities in Iran article it says ethnic Azerbaijanis make up 16% of Iran's population, while in
Demographics of Tehran it says they make 20-30%, so while larger still not an overall majority. As the capital Tehran is a multi-ethnic city, so this shouldn't be considered surprising.
Keep -- This is not a trivial intersection. We have hundreds of expatriate and descent categories. However most of these are national categories. In this case we have enough population to have it by city. Then normal format would require the parent to be
Category:Iranians of Azerbaijani descent, or perhaps more accurately
Category:Iranians of Azeri descent, since I suspect that this is largely about a resident ethnic minority, who never where in the present Azerbaijan, being an area conquered by Russian in the 19th century.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I had not spotted
Category:Iranian Azerbaijanis, or if I did, I missed its significance. That would be a merge target, but I still fail to see why a well-populated category such as this becomes a trivial intersection. Upmerge in preference to plain deletion, but my view is that if an intersection of two legitimate categories can be adequately populated, we should retain it.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept; there's a difference between Azeris (who you are) and Azerbaijanis (where your citizenship is), and this category appears to conflate them. Unless Azerbaijan has a really broad jus sanguinis policy (like Germany until recently), most people originating in Tehran are not Azerbaijani.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That's an interesting point because afaics the articles that are in this category conflate these concepts similarly. Besides they mostly mention "descent" which seems to imply that these are people descending from inhabitants of the former Soviet republic Azerbaijan. Besides quite a lot of articles don't mention this characteristic at all, it seems like there is some OR involved in this categorization scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That's why
User:Nyttend mentioned these peoples ple are presumably Azeris rather than Azerbaijanis, but in articles they are nevertheless referred to as Iranian Azerbaijanis. That is, insofar Azerbaijani is mentioned at all, which is too often not the case.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
21:19, 23 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.